Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 01-14 CCPCouncil Study Session City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 14, 2019 AGE NDA 1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m. The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City C ounc il packet is available to the public . The packet ring binder is loc ated at the podium. 2.M iscellaneous 3.Discussion of Work S ession Agenda Item as T ime P ermits 4.Adjourn C IT Y C O UNC IL M E E T I NG City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 14, 2019 AGE NDA 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the C ounc il on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political c ampaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the C ounc il will be for c larific ation only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reac ting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the c itizen for informational purposes only. 2.Invocation - 7 p.m. Administer Ceremonial Oath of Office a.Mayor b.Council members 3.Call to Order Regular Business M eeting The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City C ounc il packet is available to the public . The packet ring binder is loc ated at the podium. 4.Roll Call 5.P ledge of Allegiance - F lag Ceremony by Boy S couts T roop 3403 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda The following items are c onsidered to be routine by the C ity Council and will be enac ted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration I tems. a.Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve the minutes from: December 10, 2018 Study Session December 10, 2018 Regular Session b.Approval of L icenses - Approve licenses as presented c.Resolution Designating Official Newspaper - Approve resolution Designating Official Newspaper for 2019 d.Resolution Designating Depositories of City F unds - Motion to approve resolution designating depositories of city funds. e.Resolution A pproving the 2019 Fee S chedule - Approve the resolution approving the 2019 Fee Schedule f.Resolution Granting Corporate A uthority for Signing of Checks and Transactions of Financial B usiness Matters - Motion to approve resolution granting corporate authority for signing of checks and transactions of financial business matters. g.Resolution Opting not to Waive L imited Tort L iability for 2019 - Motion to adopt resolution opting not to waive limited tort liability for 2019 h.Resolution A mending S ection 2.94 of City Council Code of Policy to I nclude Paid-On-Call Firefighters - Approve the resolution amending Section 2.94 of the City of Brooklyn Center City Council Code of Policies to include Paid-On-Call Firefighters 7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a.Resolution Recognizing S ervice and Contributions of Mayor Tim W illson - Motion to approve resolution recognizing service and contribution of Mayor Tim Willson b.Certificate of A chievement for E xcellence in Financial Reporting - Motion to acknowledge the Certificate of Achievement award for the City of Brooklyn Center’s 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 8.P ublic Hearings a.An Ordinance A mending Chapter 23 of the Brooklyn Center City Code Regarding Hospitality A ccommodations - Motion to open public hearing - Take public input - Motion to close the public hearing - Motion to approve the Second Reading, adopt an Ordinance authorizing amendments to Chapter 23 of the Brooklyn Center City Code Regarding Hospitality Accommodations b.An Ordinance A mending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Tenant Protections - S econd Reading and Public Hearing - Moti on to open public hearing, take public comment, and close public hearing - Motion to approve the second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordi nances regarding tenant protections and approve a resolution amending the fee schedule relati ng to Administrative Penalties - Motion to approve a resolution approving the Summary Publication of the adopted ordinance c.L iquor L icense Violation - J ammin W ings - Motion to open public hearing - Take public input - Motion to close public hearing 9.P lanning Commission Items 10.Council Consideration Items a.Resolution Selecting P residing Officers- Mayor Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem - Appoint the Mayor P ro Tem and A cting President P ro Tem for 2019 b.Resolution Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter - Approve resolution Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter c.Resolution Recognizing the Contributions of E thnic P opulations and Heritage Celebrations - Approve a resolution Recognizing the Contributions of Ethnic Populations and Heritage Celebrations d.An Ordinance A mending Chapter 1 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Bee K eeping - Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding bee keeping and calling for a public hearing and second reading to be held on February 11, 2019 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE:1/14/2019 TO:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A FROM: SUBJECT: Barb Suciu, City Clerk Mayor Oath of Office Requested Council Action: Background: COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE:1/14/2019 TO:Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH:N/A FROM: SUBJECT: Barb Suciu, City Clerk Council members Oath of Office Requested Council Action: Background: COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:R eggie Edwards, Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:Approval of Minutes Requested Council Action: - M otion to approve the minutes from: D ecember 10, 2018 S tudy S ession D ecember 10, 2018 R egular S ession Background: S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e 12/10/18 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY/WORK SESSION DECEMBER 10, 2018 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study/Work Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, and Dan Ryan. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director Nate Reinhardt, City Engineer Mike Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Police Chief Tim Gannon, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Ryan requested clarification regarding Agenda Item 8A, Street Utility Improvements Public Hearing, and the issue of a proposed sidewalk. City Manager Curt Boganey stated a letter was received from a resident who opposes the inclusion of a sidewalk in the Street Utility Improvements plan. He added the approximate cost of the sidewalk, $55,000-60,000, would not influence the overall budget, or special assessments. Mr. Boganey stated the staff presentation under Agenda Item 8A will go into a little more detail on the sidewalk. He added the sidewalk was included in the original project plan adopted several years ago. He noted eliminating the sidewalk from the Street Utility Improvements Plan would not have a significant impact on the project cost. Mr. Boganey reviewed Consent Agenda Item 6d, Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Financial Policies Section of the Brooklyn Center City Council Code of Policies. He added the City’s rating agencies and Financial Advisor have indicated the amendments are justifiable and should be adopted. He added, however, this issue is not urgent and he recommended the item be removed from the Agenda pending further review by the Budget Commission. There was a majority consensus among the City Council to remove Consent Agenda Item 6d, Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Financial Policies Section of the Brooklyn Center City Council Code of Policies. 12/10/18 -2- DRAFT Mr. Boganey reviewed Agenda Item 8e, Liquor License Violation - Jammin Wings. He added the proprietor did not receive notice of the public hearing within the required 10-day advanced notice period. He added the proprietor could agree to waive the advanced notice period and proceed with the hearing. He noted City Staff has been unable to contact the applicant, who may still appear at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Boganey reviewed Item 10a, Approve the Renewal for Jammin Wings Intoxicating Liquor License, which is related to Agenda Item 8e. Mayor Willson stated the City Council could still decide on this case whether the applicant shows up or not. He added he believes the license for Jammin Wings was approved with the requirement that no violations occur before the license expires on December 31, 2018. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated the applicant must be present for the City Council to revoke or suspend the license. He recommended postponing action on this item if the applicant does not show up. He noted the license would be up for renewal after December 31, 2018, if there have been no violations. Mayor Willson stated there was a recent violation involving serving alcohol to a minor. He added the license is contingent upon there being no further liquor license violations. He noted this would not preclude the City Council from approving another license. Mr. Gilchrist stated due process must occur before a determination is made regarding a potential violation of the terms of the license. Mayor Willson stated this item could be postponed to the City Council’s next Regular Meeting, before which the applicant’s license will expire by default. Mr. Gilchrist stated the $1,000 fee can be reinstated but any new proposed penalty would have to wait the full 10 days for due process. He recommended that the City Council could mention this item during the Regular Meeting but not take any action. Mr. Boganey stated the suspended $1,000 fee will take effect whether the applicant shows up or not, and a time frame is necessary. He added the hearing can be rescheduled to the City Council’s January 2019 Regular Meeting, at which time the City Council may impose further penalties if they so choose. MISCELLANEOUS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT DISCUSSION 12/10/18 -3- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated he would like to add a discussion regarding a City Council retreat to the next Work Session agenda for further dialogue and discussion. He added the City Council has held a retreat at least every two years. He noted the City Council could review the Strategic Plan update, build in team-building activities, discuss City Council policies and procedures, or review the upcoming calendar. Councilmember Graves stated a retreat is a good idea. She added her preference would be to try a different facilitator. She noted she does not have any complaints about the facilitator at the City Council’s last two retreats, but a change might be good. Councilmember Butler agreed. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff will add a discussion regarding a City Council retreat to the next Work Session Agenda. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Mayor Willson asked whether the City Council had feedback or comments for Mr. Boganey regarding items on the “Pending List for Future Work Sessions”. Mayor Willson stated he was involved in a project related to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, which is allocated by Hennepin County. Mr. Boganey stated that issue is included on the list of future topics because questions were raised during the budget process regarding CDBG funding. Mr. Boganey requested the City Council’s feedback and comments on potential informational presentations from City Staff on a regular basis. He added he serves on the League of Minnesota Cities’ Board of Directors, and League staff give a short presentation at Board meetings about current projects and programs. He noted he has a few topics in mind that the City Council might find interesting. There was a majority consensus among the City Council to add City Staff presentations to the City Council’s Regular Meeting Agendas. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Study/Work Session at 6:35 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 12/10/18 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 10, 2018 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, and Dan Ryan. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director Nate Reinhardt, Public Works Director Doran Cote, City Engineer Mike Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Police Chief Tim Gannon, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. No one wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Willson read the following quote as an Invocation: “We meet to serve our community, to use our resources wisely and well, to represent all members of our community fairly, and to make decisions that promote the common good. We recognize our responsibility to the past and the future, and the rights and needs of both individuals and community. As trusted servants, we seek blessings on our deliberations, and on our efforts here today, may we act wisely and well.” 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 12/10/18 -2- DRAFT The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:00 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, and Dan Ryan. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Finance Director Nate Reinhardt, City Engineer Mike Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Police Chief Tim Gannon, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Willson stated the City Council agreed to remove Consent Agenda Item 6d from the Regular Meeting Agenda, for additional review by the Financial Commission. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, with the removal of Consent Agenda Item 6d, Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Financial Policies Section of the Brooklyn Center City Council Code of Policies, and the following Consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 26, 2018 – Study Session 2. November 26, 2018 – Regular Session 3. November 26, 2018 – Work Session 4. December 3, 2018 – Special Meeting 6b. LICENSES FIREWORKS DISPLAY Pyrotecnico Fireworks TopGolf 6420 North Camden Avenue December 31, 2018 Midnight GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSES Holiday Stationstores, LLC 420 66 th Avenue Brooklyn Center MN 55430 LIQUOR – ON-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR Bryant Wings 1180 Shingle Creek Crossing 12/10/18 -3- DRAFT dba Wings Stop Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Chipotle Mexican Grill 5711 Xerxes Avenue N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Davanni’s, Inc. 5937 Summit Drive dba Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Rose Garden LLC 6090 Shingle Creek Parkway dba Rose Garden Brooklyn Center MN 55430 LIQUOR – ON-SALE CLUB Duoos Brothers 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard dba American Legion Post 630 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 LIQUOR – ON-SALE INTOXICATING 2200 Beverage Management 2200 Freeway Boulevard dba American Legion Post 630 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Apple Minnesota LLC 1400 Shingle Creek Crossing dba Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC 6300 Earle Brown Drive dba Embassy Suites Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Flik International Corporation 6155 Earle Brown Drive dba Earle Brown Heritage Center Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Jambo Africa, Inc. 1601 Freeway Boulevard Jambo Africa Brooklyn Center MN 55430 TopGolf USA 6420 Camden Avenue N dba: TopGolf Brooklyn Center MN 55430 LIQUOR – ON-SALE SUNDAY 2200 Beverage Management 2200 Freeway Boulevard dba: Rise by Elevation Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Apple Minnesota LLC 1400 Shingle Creek Crossing dba Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC 6300 Earle Brown Drive dba Embassy Suites Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Duoos Brothers 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard dba American Legion Post 630 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Flik International Corporation 6155 Earle Brown Drive dba Earle Brown Heritage Center Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Jambo Africa, Inc. 1601 Freeway Boulevard Jambo Africa Brooklyn Center MN 55430 TopGolf USA 6420 Camden Avenue N dba: TopGolf Brooklyn Center MN 55430 LIQUOR – ON-SALE WINE Brooklyn Center Restaurant Inc. 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard dba 50’s Grill Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Davanni’s, Inc. 5937 Summit Drive 12/10/18 -4- DRAFT dba Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Rose Garden LLC 6090 Shingle Creek Parkway dba Rose Garden Brooklyn Center MN 55430 MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS C&C HVAC, Inc. 16730 242 nd Avenue NW Big Lake MN 55309 RTS Mechanical LLC 725 Tower Drive Hamel MN 55340 St. Paul Plumbing & Heating Company 640 Grand Avenue St. Paul MN 55105 PUBLIC DANCE Jambo Africa 1601 Freeway Boulevard Minneapolis MN 55430 Jammin’ Wings 2950 Freeway Boulevard Brooklyn Center MN 55430 SIGN CONTRACTOR Dandy Signs & Graphics 806 Como Avenue St. Paul MN 55103 Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Avenue N Brooklyn Park MN 55429 TOBACCO PRODUCTS Holiday Stationstores, LLC 420 66 th Avenue N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Holiday Stationstores, LLC 6890 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Northern Tier Retail LLC 6950 Brooklyn Boulevard dba Speedway #3192 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Northern Tier Retail LLC 1901 57 th Avenue N dba Speedway #4058 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Northern Tier Retail LLC 6545 West River Road dba Speedway #4160 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Royal Tobacco 5625 Xerxes Avenue N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Walmart, Inc. 1200 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RENTAL RENEWAL (TYPE IV – one-year license) 5301 Russell Avenue N Nedzad Ceric 5025 Drew Avenue N Ryan Partners, LLC/Ryan Schmidt 5432 Dupont Avenue Xiangming Guan 5455 Emerson Avenue N Elbrus Management 12/10/18 -5- DRAFT RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 4204 Lakebreeze Avenue Todd Bertleson/CPP3 LLC 3818 61 st Avenue N Sherman Yih Feng Kho 5207 Boulder Lane Ross Herman 5025 Drew Avenue N Ryan Partners, LLC/Ryan Schmidt 6820 Freemont Place N Sharon McGary 6908 Unity Avenue N Xingfu Chen RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 3218 63 rd Avenue N My Truong 6919 France Avenue N Benjamin Hermantin 6800 Freemont Place N Sharon McGary 6413 June Avenue N Douglas Allen Wahl RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 6331 Beard Avenue N CCFI Holding LLC 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway Steven Plotz Crest Apartments 2113 55 th Avenue N Invitation Homes 3000 62 nd Avenue N Dan Soffa 1401 72 nd Avenue N Chad Tessmer 6501 Brooklyn Drive Dawn M. Araya 2023 Brookview Drive FYR SFR BORROWER LLC 5814 Ewing Avenue Michele Nyarecha 6734 France Avenue N Alexander Yang 5410 Gerard Avenue N Douglas Allen Wahl 5351 Irving Avenue N Douglas Allen Wahl 4207 Lakeside Avenue #327 Rachel Petz 6330 Orchard Avenue N Mark Kohls 7169 Unity Avenue N Soye Chalte 5925 Washburn Avenue N Cheng Lor 4419 Winchester Lane Easton Homes LLC 6c. 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE 6d. RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE FINANCIAL POLICIES SECTION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL CODE OF POLICIES (This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and referred to the Finance Commission for recommendation.) 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-205 DIRECTING STAFF TO RECLASSIFY CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE TO A GOVERNMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 12/10/18 -6- DRAFT 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-206 TO FORGIVE THE REMAINING INTERFUND ADVANCE BETWEEN THE CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE FUND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-207 APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, PROJECT NO. 2017-14, LIFT STATION NO. 1 REHABILITATION AND WETWELL IMPROVEMENTS 6h. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-208 APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE METROPOLITAN CONSORTIUM OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS FOR THE OPEN TO BUSINESS PROGRAM 6i. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-209 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, PROJECT NO. 2017-05, EVERGREEN PARK AREA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL TRAIL AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS 6j. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-210 SETTING SALARIES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019 Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS -None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. RESOLUTIONS REGARDING INTERSTATE AREA STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Doran Cote introduced this item. He stated the Interstate Area Street and Utility Improvements project requires both an improvement public hearing and an assessment public hearing. He noted a unanimous vote will be required due to the absence of Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson. Mr. Cote stated City Staff had not received any resident requests to appeal the special assessments. He added special assessments will be removed from the assessment role for further evaluation if an objection is raised. City Engineer Mike Albers stated the Interstate Area Street and Utility Improvements Project is a continuation of the City’s Capital Improvement Program, which was initiated in 1993. He 12/10/18 -7- DRAFT added, to date, 92.5 miles or 88% of the City’s streets have been reconstructed, with 13.1 miles remaining, for a total cost of approximately$201 million Mr. Albers stated the proposed project includes improvements to sanitary sewer, street lights, and other amenities in this area. He added approximately 95% of the sanitary sewer system has root intrusion, and some pipe sections have cracks and sags. He noted replacement of the sanitary sewer system in this area is recommended, including private lines to the mains. Mr. Albers stated the proposed project also includes removal and replacement of storm structures and pipes, extension of sump catch basins, improved water quality treatment, rain gardens, and other improvements. He added new curb and gutter are proposed, with full depth pavement and aggregate base, as well as sidewalk improvements including pedestrian curb ramps at certain locations. Mr. Albers stated a new 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed as part of the project. He added the sidewalk would run along the north side of 62 nd Avenue to Lyndale Avenue and would be maintained and plowed by the City. He noted City sidewalks are a proven appreciated asset, and encourage biking, walking and use of public transportation. Mr. Albers requested City Council feedback and comment on the proposed sidewalk. Mr. Albers stated driveways that are disturbed will be restored with a 5-foot concrete apron, and boulevards will be replaced with sod and topsoil. He added any trees that were removed will be replaced. He noted 11 free-standing street lights will be replaced with fiberglass poles and LED light fixtures. Mr. Albers stated residents in the project area will have access to their property every evening. He added other inconveniences, such as noise and dust, will be addressed during the project timeline. Mr. Albers stated there is a unique combination of funding sources for the project, including special assessments, sanitary sewer utility funds, water utility funds, storm drainage utility funds, street light utility funds, and street reconstruction funds. He reviewed the total assessment of $6010 per property with payment options. He noted the project will be under construction from April 2019 through Fall 2019. Mr. Albers stated City Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the required public hearings and authorize the proposed Interstate Area Street and Utility Improvements Project and certify special assessments. Councilmember Ryan requested clarification regarding the total cost of the proposed sidewalk at 62 nd Avenue. Mr. Albers stated the sidewalk cost is projected at $55,000 to be funded from the 12/10/18 -8- DRAFT Construction Fund. He added the project cost will not be reduced by much if the sidewalk is removed. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Wendell Holm, 814 62 nd Avenue N, stated he is opposed to the sidewalk on his property, as the slope in his front yard is steep. He added power poles and trees will have to be moved, and snow plows will push snow into his driveway. He noted he believes the sidewalk will cause many problems. Mayor Willson asked City Staff for clarification regarding power poles. Mr. Albers stated the existing power poles will not be moved from their existing location. Mike Baertschy, 520 62 nd Avenue N, stated his property will also be impacted by the sidewalk. He asked how this will affect the width of the street. He added a 6-foot sidewalk seems excessive, especially since it leads to a dead-end at the freeway wall. He asked if there will be a sidewalk along Lyndale Avenue. Mayor Willson stated the streets will be 30-feet wide, with 30 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Albers stated the City Council adopted a 6-foot standard width for sidewalks in 2013, to provide more space for pedestrians and bicycles, and increase accessibility in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He added the proposed sidewalk will provide a connection to Lilac Drive N and Lyndale Avenue N. He noted a sidewalk on Lyndale Avenue is not part of the proposed project. Mr. Baertschy thanked City Staff for the very professional presentation. Barbara Ganz, 6139 Bryant Avenue N, stated she supports the sidewalk, as she sees many school-age children walking in the middle of her street on their way to school. She expressed concern for their safety. She added the sidewalk will be a feeder for students who walk along Dupont Avenue N to get to school. Ms. Ganz asked whether the City will be responsible for improving sewer lines from the street to property lines, and how many properties could be affected. She asked whether they might require additional mitigation after the project is complete, which would be an additional expense to residents. Mr. Willcox requested clarification from Mr. Albers. Mr. Albers stated the City replaces the utility line from the main to the property line, and if any roots or obstruction are noticed, the homeowner is notified. He added it is up to the individual homeowner if they wish to address 12/10/18 -9- DRAFT any additional repair. He noted he will stay and talk to Ms. Ganz after the public Hearing to address her concerns. Blaine McCutcheon, 6131 Aldrich Avenue N, stated Aldrich Avenue has had curb and gutter replaced a few times and is in pretty good condition. He asked whether complete reconstruction is necessary when curbs are in good shape. He added he supports new LED light fixtures. He noted the neighborhood has noise and pollution from the surrounding freeways, and recently the neon lights from TopGolf have been visible from the neighborhood. Tom Sullivan, 6242 Lilac Drive N, stated he is concerned about the speed of traffic on Bryant Avenue N, and whether anything can be done at the 62 nd Avenue N intersection to reduce traffic speeds. He asked whether he will be able to get his vehicles out of his driveway on the weekends. Mayor Willson stated the contractor will work with residents to ensure they have access to their driveways. Mr. Sullivan asked whether cameras will be used on every sewer line. Mayor Willson stated the lines will not be inspected past the right of way. Mr. Albers stated City Staff will look at utility lines as part of the pre-project evaluation process. Mr. Sullivan asked whether residents will be responsible for maintaining rain gardens. Mayor Willson confirmed this. Mr. Sullivan asked whether the contractor will replace sprinkler systems. Mr. Albers confirmed this. Mr. Sullivan asked whether trees will be replaced on his property along Lilac Drive N. Mayor Willson stated only trees that were removed as part of the project will be replaced. Ms. Ganz returned to the podium and asked whether the water main trenches will be dug to the same depth in all locations, and which streets will be done first, as she lives on a corner. Mayor Willcox stated a schedule has not been set. Mr. Albers stated a pre-construction meeting will be held with the neighborhood to review the construction process. Mr. McCutcheon returned to the podium, and stated his driveway is near the parking lot entrance to the Hmong Community Alliance Church. He asked whether sewers are replaced to support a higher level of use of sewer and water, and whether the area might be rezoned. Mayor Willson stated sewer and water capacity is based on the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and a high-density development is not planned for this residential neighborhood. Mr. McCutcheon asked whether the increased traffic from other ongoing highway projects, like Highway 252 and Highway 94, will affect this project. 12/10/18 -10- DRAFT Mayor Willson stated the Minnesota Department of Transportation will be adding stop lights on Humboldt Avenue N, and signage directing vehicles to use Humboldt Avenue. Mr. McCutcheon asked whether commuter bike lanes on the streets are planned. Mayor Willson stated that is not part of the project plan. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Albers stated, regarding curb replacement, the grade along streets will be adjusted which impacts the majority of curb and gutter. He added it would not be practical to save all the curb and gutter. Mr. Albers stated, regarding traffic speed, no bump-outs are planned as part of this project, but the Traffic Speed Committee can evaluate these types of concerns. Councilmember Graves stated, regarding the proposed sidewalk, she believes the safety of children and pedestrians is important. She added, however, she is empathetic to things changing from what people are used to. She expressed concern that the sidewalk ends at a dead end. She re-iterated the importance of safety for students walking to school. Mayor Willson stated it will be more expensive and disruptive to add the sidewalk after the project is completed. He noted there is a City-wide policy to add sidewalks wherever possible to facilitate pedestrian traffic. He expressed his support of the sidewalk as proposed. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-211 ORDERING THE INTERSTATE AREA STREET STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-211 Ordering the Interstate Area Street Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements, and Authorizing Preparation of Project Plans and Specifications. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-212 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE PROJECT TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing at 8:01 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 12/10/18 -11- DRAFT Mayor Willson stated residents who wish to contest the special assessment will be removed from the list and referred to City Staff for review based upon the resident’s complaint. Barbara Ganz, 6139 Bryant Avenue N, asked what interest rate would be if she chooses to defer payment of the special assessment, and whether it will affect the equity of her property. She added she is unsure of the impact of the deferment. Mayor Willson stated Ms. Ganz’ questions can be answered by City Staff. Mr. Boganey agreed to provide the interest rate. He added Ms. Ganz is not contesting the special assessment, but rather asking for clarification regarding deferment. He noted Ms. Ganz’ property can remain on the assessment roll. Blaine McCutcheon, 6131 Aldrich Avenue N, asked whether he can contest part of the assessment. He added he does not believe curbs and gutters on his street need to be replaced, as they are in good condition. Mayor Willcox stated the special assessment is for the whole street and not just a single property. He added Mr. McCutcheon can contest the special assessment. Mr. Boganey stated standard assessments are applied to each property. He asked whether Mr. McCutcheon is contesting the assessment. Mr. McCutcheon stated he is not contesting the assessment amount but rather an aspect of the project and removal of good infrastructure. Mr. Boganey stated the project was already approved by the City Council. Ken Lundgren, 5927 Bryant Avenue N, requested information on applying for a deferment plan. Mr. Boganey stated residents can call the Public Works Department (Tel: 763-569-3340) for further information regarding special assessment deferment. He added City Staff can also contact the resident with this information. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Public Hearing at 8:13 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-212 Certifying Special Assessments for the Project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-213 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF ITS CONDUIT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS 12/10/18 -12- DRAFT RELATING TO THE UNITY PLACE PROJECT; ADOPTING A HOUSING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C; APPROVING THE FORMS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS; AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO Finance Director Nate Reinhardt introduced this item. He stated Unity Group has requested the issuance of conduit bonds for a re novation project at Unity Place, an existing 112-unit affordable rental townhomes development. He added the issuance of conduit debt does not affect the City’s credit rating. Dan Walsh, Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC), 614 North 1 st Street, Minneapolis, stated his organization has owned Unity Place since the early 1990s. He added he is coordinating the project re-finance and other related proposals. He noted the mission of is to sustain high-quality affordable homes and enhance affordable community development. Mr. Walsh stated conduit housing revenue bonds will allow the project to obtain Federal low- income housing tax credits. He reviewed proposed renovations to Unity Place: improved parking lot access, a new central courtyard and playground, replacement and addition of interior amenities; addition of gutters and downspouts; and landscape regrading. He added lighting, air conditioning units, washers, dryers and furnaces will be replaced with high-efficiency models. He noted a common community building is planned, that will house management offices, community gathering rooms, a fitness room, and smaller meeting room. Councilmember Ryan stressed the importance of ensuring that the bond issuance is not an obligation taken on by the City. Councilmember Graves asked whether trash and recycling is included with rental costs. Mr. Walsh confirmed this. He added the existing trash enclosures re in good condition and require very little upgrading. Councilmember Graves expressed concern that there will be enough trash receptacles throughout the property to reduce the amount of litter in open spaces and the nearby creek. Mr. Walsh agreed, adding there will be additional landscaping and signage, as well as a new trash enclosure near the proposed central building and courtyard. Mayor Willson asked whether Unity Place has considered organic recycling stations, which will soon be a State mandate. Mr. Walsh stated there is not currently a composting area on the site, but he agreed to look into it. 12/10/18 -13- DRAFT Councilmember Graves asked if there will be a community garden. Mr. Walsh confirmed this, adding a series of raised planting beds are planned for the area to the northeast of the sports field, with access to water. Mr. Boganey stated it is anticipated that there will be enough funding over time to cover the improvements that are being proposed. Mr. Walsh agreed, adding a 20-year capital needs assessment is planned. Councilmember Ryan stated this is a Section 8 property. He asked whether rent assistance is linked to the unit or if there are thresholds. Mr. Walsh stated the maximum income of a resident will be 60% of the median income, when the project is complete. Mayor Willson stated there is a distinct shortage of affordable housing across the metropolitan area, and he is glad to see that this property will remain affordable. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing at 8:33 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address this item. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Public Hearing at 8:34 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-213 Authorizing the Issuance, Sale and Delivery of its Conduit Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds Relating to the Unity Place Project; Adopting a Housing Program Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462c; Approving the Forms and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of the Bonds and Related Documents; Providing for the Security, Rights and Remedies with Respect to the Bonds; and Granting Approval for Certain Other Actions with Respect Thereto. Motion passed unanimously. 8c. RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING UTILITY RATES FOR 2019 Mr. Reinhardt stated a Public Hearing is required to adopt 2019 utility rates, which will take effect January 1, 2019. He added utility improvements rates are primarily driven by proposed utility infrastructure investments over next two years. Mr. Reinhardt reviewed the 2019 proposed rate changes for the utility funds, which have not increased in the past 9 years. 12/10/18 -14- DRAFT Mr. Reinhard stated a proposed change is the inclusion of a water meter charge for new water meters only. He added there is no charge to the resident if the meter is defective. He noted an increase from $99 to $149 is proposed, which is still below the actual cost to the City of $230 per meter plus associated costs. Councilmember Graves expressed concern that a resident might be inadvertently charged twice for a water meter. Mr. Reinhardt stated a resident would only be charged for a new water meter. Councilmember Graves asked why utilities are so expensive in New Hope. Mr. Boganey stated he believes the City of New Hope purchases their water from the City of Minneapolis. Mr. Boganey stated, regarding water meter charges, City Staff has found it difficult to maintain the administrative process for keeping track water meter refunds. He added the proposed change will streamline this process. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to open the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address this item. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Public Hearing at 8:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-214 ADOPTING 2019 WATER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-214 Adopting 2019 Water Utility Rates, Fees and Charges. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-215 ADOPTING 2019 SEWER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-215 Adopting 2019 Sewer Utility Rates, Fees and Charges. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-216 ADOPTING 2019 STORM SEWER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES 12/10/18 -15- DRAFT Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-216 Adopting 2019 Storm Sewer Utility Rates, Fees and Charges. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-217 ADOPTING 2019 STREET LIGHT RATES, FEES AND CHARGES Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-217 Adopting 2019 Street Light Rates, Fees and Charges. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-218 ADOPTING 2019 RECYCLING RATES AND CHARGES Councilmember Butler moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-218 Adopting 2019 Recycling Rates and Charges. Motion passed unanimously. 8d. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-16 AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL INTERIM USE IN THE CITY’S COMMERCIAL AND CENTRAL COMMERCE OVERLAY DISTRICTS Community Development Director Meg Beekman introduced this issue. She stated Brooklyn Center Community Schools is seeking a temporary location for students during a school construction project. She added this Ordinance amendment would create a new interim educational use component within the Commerce or Central Commerce Overlay District. She noted this is the second reading of the proposed Ordinance amendment. Mayor Willson clarified that this is not a blanket approval. Ms. Beekman agreed, adding the amendment creates a process through which individual allowances could be made. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to open the Public Hearing at 9:01 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address this item. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Public Hearing at 9:02 p.m. 12/10/18 -16- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve second reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2018-16 Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Elementary and Secondary School Interim Use in the City’s Commercial and Central Commerce Overlay Districts and approve a summarized version of the ordinance for publication. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Willson thanked City Staff for their excellent work and flexibility in working with the community to find creative solutions that benefit its residents. 8e. LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION – JAMMIN’ WINGS Mayor Willson asked whether the owner was in attendance. Hearing no response, Mayor Willson indicated the public hearing would not be held this evening. He noted at this time, the City Council can deliberate or consider a motion to approve the liquor license for Jammin’ Wings. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to approve the renewal for Jammin’ Wings’ Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday Sales Liquor License. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Willson sated there will be a public hearing for a license violation at a future date, possibly the next City Council meeting. Councilmember Ryan stated the property owner has an outstanding fine due to compliance check failure. He asked whether the City Council could re-examine issuance of the liquor license if they are not satisfied with resolution of the compliance failure. Mr. Gilchrist stated renewal of the liquor license does not address or relieve the property owner from the outstanding penalty due to a second violation, or the potential action on that violation that will be considered at the next meeting. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS -None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. APPROVE THE RENEWAL FOR JAMMIN’ WINGS INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE AND SUNDAY SALES LIQUOR LICENSE Mayor Willson noted this item was acted upon during consideration of Agenda Item 8e. 12/10/18 -17- DRAFT 10b. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE REGARDING HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS Police Chief Tim Gannon stated the proposed Ordinance amendment is an attempt to reduce the number of police calls for service and level of crime at local hotels. He reviewed requested and implemented changes to the existing ordinance, including a change from the use of “transient” to “hospitality”. He added an enhanced point system is proposed to track service calls. Police Chief Gannon stated City Staff recommends City Council approval of the first reading of the Ordinance amendment, and to schedule the public hearing and second reading on January 14, 2019. Councilmember Graves requested clarification regarding City Staff who will be responsible for maintaining hotel contact information. Mr. Boganey stated the City Clerk oversees the current licensing program. Police Chief Gannon stressed the importance of maintaining contact information for hotel management and hierarchy, but not for each employee. Councilmember Graves asked whether hotels may perceive a loss of revenue if customers are required to have a credit or debit card to reserve a room. Police Chief Gannon stated the issue is alleviation of anonymity, and most hotels require a credit card or security deposit to hold a reservation. He added City Staff will send a notice to local hotels and schedule meetings to review the new Ordinance. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the first reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the Brooklyn Center City Code Regarding Hospitality Accommodations, and to schedule the public hearing and second reading for January 14, 2019. Motion passed unanimously. 10c. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING TENANT PROTECTIONS Ms. Beekman introduced this issue. She requested the City Council’s consideration of the first reading of the Tenant Protection Ordinance, which will create new legally binding housing and protect tenants who live in affordable housing, as well as put policies in place to address preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing. Ms. Beekman stated the tenant protection Ordinance is designed to mitigate displacement of renters. She noted, under the proposed Ordinance, a landlord must provide cause for non- renewal within 90 days, and landlords are limited as to what causes they can use to non-renew tenants. 12/10/18 -18- DRAFT Ms. Beekman stated, under the proposed Ordinance amendment, rental property owners will be required to notify tenants within 30 days of purchase if they intend to make changes to the lease. She added they must wait 90 days before changes can be made. She noted this effectively freezes the terms of the lease for three months, allowing renters time to relocate if they need to. Ms. Beekman stated this Ordinance amendment would be administered by the City’s existing rental licensing program and landlord/tenant disputes would be dealt with through Housing Court. She added an existing property owner who plans to sell their property may choose to vacate the building prior to sale or make changes to a lease prior to sale, and these things would not be covered by the Ordinance. She noted several metropolitan cities have adopted this type of Ordinance but have not yet needed to take action to enforce it. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to approve the first reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Tenant Protections, and to schedule the public hearing and second reading for January 14, 2019. Mayor Willson stated he supports the Ordinance amendment but expressed trepidation that there is no historical data to support it. He added the proposed Ordinance amendment addresses a problem that does not currently exist. He noted the City has historically enacted Ordinance amendments only when an issue that is affecting the community needs to be corrected. Councilmember Ryan stated good public policy is a matter of experimentation. He added the proposed Ordinance amendment will protect moderate to low-income renters from potential changes to properties that may affect them. He added it may become a deterrent for investors and potential development, but the issue can be reviewed if that occurs. Councilmember Graves stated she sees the Ordinance amendment as a preventative measure. She asked for clarification regarding the Housing Commission’s recommendations regarding percentages, and potential consequences. She expressed confidence in the ability of City Staff to provide a preventative solution while preserving investment in Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • November 29, 2018 – attended League of Minnesota Cities and Metropolitan Council Joint Annual Meeting in Golden Valley • December 2, 2018 – attended and volunteered at Brooklyn Center Lions’ Holly Sunday festivities at the Civic Center • December 3, 2018 – met with City Manager Curt Boganey 12/10/18 -19- DRAFT • December 4, 2018 – attended Business Champions for Youth luncheon at Edinburgh USA, featuring BrookLynk, an organization that assists the community’s young people in finding jobs and internships • December 5, 2018, participated in 2020 U.S. Census forum and discussion. • December 11, 2018 – will attend Highway 252 Improvements Open House at 5:30 p.m. at Evergreen Park Elementary School, 7020 Dupont Avenue N Councilmember Graves reported on her attendance at the following events: • November 27, 2018 – attended Think Again Brooklyns event at Brooklyn Park City Hall: “Keeping People with Disabilities in their Homes with their Families” • November 30, 2018 – attended football banquet at Concordia College, St. Paul, related to her work regarding consent issues • December 4-6, 2018 – attended training for National Incident Management System (NIMS) • December 8, 2018 – attended Women Winning panel on getting started as a candidate Councilmember Butler stated she has been on vacation for the past few weeks. She added her son attended Holly Sunday with his grandparents, and they loved it. She thanked Brooklyn Center City Staff for the successful event. Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following events: • November 27, 2018 – attended Rotary Club lunch • November 29, 2018 – attended Blue Line Corridor Management Committee Meeting. • December 3, 2018 – attended City Council Special Meeting and Budget Approval • December 4, 2018 - Rotary lunch at the Rise • December 6, 2018 – unable to attend the Dangerous Dog Hearing Councilmember Ryan expressed his appreciation to Mayor Willson for twelve years of excellent service to the City of Brooklyn Center. He added the accomplishments of the City Council are due in part to Mayor Willcox’s dedication and leadership. He thanked Mayor Willcox for his service and wished him well in his retirement. He noted he hopes Mayor Willcox will consider an appointment to a City Commission. Councilmember Graves added her well wishes and thanks, adding it has been a pleasure to serve with Mayor Willson for the past four years. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council’s first Regular Meeting in January 2019 will include a Resolution of Recognition to Mayor Willson for his accomplishments and years of service. Mr. Boganey stated many positive changes have happened in Brooklyn Center over the past few years, and Mayor Willson’s leadership, as well as the hard work of the Councilmembers, has resulted in achievements and accomplishments. He commended Mayor Willcox, adding he can be proud of his work as the Mayor of Brooklyn Center for the past twelve years. 12/10/18 -20- DRAFT Mayor Willson thanked the Councilmembers and City Staff. He added the City Council will move forward with important changes and policies. He noted he looks forward to great things from the City Council in the future. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:57 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:R eggie Edwards, Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Alix Bentrud, Deputy C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:Approval of Licens es Requested Council Action: - Approve licenses as presented Background: T he following bus inesses/pers ons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Eac h busines s /person has fulfilled the requirements of the C ity O rdinanc e governing respec tive lic enses, submitted appropriate applic ations , and paid proper fees . Applicants for rental dwelling licens es are in compliance with C hapter 12 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances, unles s c omments are noted below the property address on the attac hed rental report. T he liquor lic ense renewals are bas ed on past prac tic es of dis tance requirements and may require an amendment in the future. G AS O LIN E S E RVIC E S TAT ION LIC E N S E S Boulevard Enterprises Inc. C hris ty's Auto S ervice 5300 Dupont Ave N Brooklyn C enter 55430 Kabalan C o. dba P ump N' Munch 1505 69th Ave N Brooklyn C enter 55430 Northern Tier R etail LLC dba S peedway #4058 1901 57th Ave N Brooklyn C enter 55430 Northern Tier R etail LLC dba S peedway #3192 6950 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn C enter 55429 Northern Tier R etail LLC dba S peedway #4160 6545 Wes t R iver R oad Brooklyn C enter 55430 LIQUOR - O F F -S ALE 3.2 P E R C E N T MALT LIQUOR Kabalan C o. dba P ump N' Munch 1505 69th Ave N Brooklyn C enter 55430 ME C HAN IC AL C ON T R AC TOR S Edina Heating & C ooling, Inc 15753 C edar R idge R d Eden P rairie 55347 2525 Nevada Ave #104 F arr P lumbing & Heating G olden Valley 55427 Heating & C ooling Experts . LLC 123 C edar S t W hite Bear Lake 55110 Larson P lumbing Inc dba Lars on P lumbing & Heating 3095 162nd Ln NW Andover 55304 S us tainable Heating & C ooling Inc.21646 T homas S t Wyoming 55092 T helen Heating & C ooling 1717 13th S t Brainerd 56401 Twin P eaks Heating & A/C 12901 221st Ave NE Elk R iver 55330 TO B A C C O Kabalan C o. dba P ump N' Munch 1505 69th Ave N Brooklyn C enter 55430 S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment Rental License Category Criteria Policy – Adopted by City Council 09-10-2018 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category (Based on Property Code Only) Number of Units Property Code Violations per Inspected Unit Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9 3+ units Greater than 3 License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category Impact 1-2 0-1 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 Categories 1-2 Greater than 3 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Pr o p e r t y  Ad d r e s s Dw e l l i n g Ty p e Re n e w a l or  In i t i a l Ow n e r Pr o p e r t y Co d e Vi o l a t i o n s Li c e n s e Ty p e Po l i c e CF S  * Final  License  Type  **Previous  License  Type  *** 53 3 1  70 t h  Ci r S i n g l e  Fa m i l y I n i t i a l B o u l a r i  Ka b o r e 1 5 I V N / A I V 54 4 8  Du p o n t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y I n i t i a l P a u l  Ga t h u m b i 5 I I N / A I I 59 2 1  Ew i n g  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y I n i t i a l M a n u e l  J  Bo n e t e 1 I I N / A I I 54 1 6  Fr e m o n t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y I n i t i a l L u i s a  Na r v a e z 1 0 I V N / A I V 69 1 5  Lo g a n  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y I n i t i a l T r a n g  La m 1 I I N / A I I 59 4 9  Vi n c e n t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y I n i t i a l O l u f e m i  Ko l a w a l e  Ol a g b a j u 5 I I N / A I I 49 1 3  Wi n c h e s t e r  Ln S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l H u d a  Ha s s e n 1 3 I V I V 66 6 1  Xe r x e s  Pl S i n g l e  Fa m i l y I n i t i a l A s h w i n  Go e l 5 I I N / A I I 34 0 1 ‐34 1 3  47 t h  Av e  N 1  Bl d g 22  Un i t s Re n e w a l R y a n  La k e  Ap a r t m e n t s 51 3. 3 2 / u n i t lV 0 l V l l l 36 0 1  47 t h  Av e  N 4  Bl d g s 44  un i t s Re n e w a l Ha l v e r s o n  & Bl a i s e r  Gr o u p ,  Lt d Ry a n  Cr e e k  Ma n o r 14 9 3. 3 8 / u n i t lV 1  va l i d l V I I I 11 0 7  57 t h  Av e  N 1  Bl d g 4  Un i t s Re n e w a l B o b  Ro b s o n 17 4. 2 5 / u n i t IV 0 I V I 45 0 0  58 t h  Av e  N 46  Bl d g s 27 6  Un i t s Re n e w a l TL N  LA  NE L Tw i n  La k e  No r t h 67 0 2. 4 2 / u n i t ll l 0 . 0 8  pe r  un i t l l l l l 70 1 8  Br o o k l y n  Bl v d 1  Bl d g 8  Un i t s Re n e w a l N e l i a  G  Sc h a f f 74 9. 2 5 / u n i t IV . 5 0  pe r  un i t I V I V 50 0 1  Ew i n g  N 1  Bl d g 4  un i t s Re n e w a l B a r t h o l o m e w  Da b r o w s k i 7 1. 7 5 / u n i t ll l 0 l l l l l l 67 0 0  Hu m b o l d t  Av e  N 4  Bl d g s 54  un i t s Re n e w a l Jo h n  Ro d e r St e r l i n g  Sq u a r e 39 0. 7 2 / u n i t l 0 . 1 5  pe r  un i t l I 67 4 2 ‐44  Fr a n c e  Av e  N Tw o  Fa m i l y 2  Un i t s Re n e w a l I n f i n i t e  Pr o p e r t y  LL C 1 0. 5 0 / u n i t l 0 l I I I 53 4 1 ‐43  Pe n n  Av e Tw o  Fa m i l y 2  Un i t s Re n e w a l M a r g e r y  Sc h w a b 3 1. 5 / u n i t l1  va l i d l I I 42 1 2  61 s t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l J o h n  Ho s t e t l e r 1 3 l V 0 l V I I 11 1 8  62 n d  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l E l b r u s  Ma n a g e m e n t 1 3 l V 0 l V I I I 31 0 6  64 t h  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l I n v i t a t i o n  Ho m e s 2 l 0 l I V 53 2 5  70 t h  Ci r c l e S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l D o u g l a s  Al l e n  Wa h l 1 0 I V 0 I V I V 56 0 6  Br y a n t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l M a r c  Si l v e r s t e i n 1 9 I V 0 I V I V 67 2 5  Br y a n t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l V o n g  Du o n g 1 2 I V 0 I V I V 57 0 0  Ca m d e n  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l Qu a l i t y  Re s i d e n c e s  /D a n m a r k   Pr o p e r t i e s ,  LL C 6 l l l 0 l l l l l 36 1 2  Co m m o d o r e S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l I n v i t a t i o n  Ho m e s 1 4 l V 0 l V I 55 5 0  Gi r a r d  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l J i m  Ja s p e r / R E S T A R T 0 l 0 l I I I Re n t a l  Li c e n s e s  fo r  Co u n c i l  Ap p r o v a l  on  Ja n u a r y  14 ,  20 1 9 Pr o p e r t y  Ad d r e s s Dw e l l i n g Ty p e Re n e w a l or  In i t i a l Ow n e r Pr o p e r t y Co d e Vi o l a t i o n s Li c e n s e Ty p e Po l i c e CF S  * Final  License  Type  **Previous  License  Type  *** Re n t a l  Li c e n s e s  fo r  Co u n c i l  Ap p r o v a l  on  Ja n u a r y  14 ,  20 1 9 70 3 7  Hu m b o l d t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l S a n  Ye n  Li e w 1 l 0 l l l l 64 4 5  Ja m e s  Ci r  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l K a s a w a  Ho s p i t a l i t y 3 l l H O T E L l l l l l 56 0 0  Ju d y  La S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l N i t a  Mo r l o c k 7 l l l 0 l l l l l l 55 0 0  Kn o x  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l M a r c  Si l v e r s t e i n 5 l l 0 l l l l 71 2 5  Ky l e  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l P r o s p e r o u s  Pr o p e r t y  LL C 2 l 0 l I 41 1 0  La k e b r e e z e  Av e S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l M i n d y  Je a n  Br u m m e r 2 l 1  va l i d l III 42 0 1  La k e s i d e  Av e  #1 0 4 S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l M i n n e a p o l i s  Pr o p e r t y  LL C 2 l 0 l I V 42 0 1  La k e s i d e  Av e  #2 0 1 S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l J u s t i n  Fr e d e r i c k 4 l l 0 l l I I I 57 2 4  Lo g a n  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l K o n s t a n t i n  Gi n z b e r g 1 0 l V 0 l V I 57 2 8  Lo g a n  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l K o n s t a n t i n  Gi n z b e r g 2 l 0 l I I 30 1 8  Oh e n r y  Rd S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l C O S C O  Pr o p e r t i e s 2 l 0 l l l 69 0 1  Qu a i l  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l P r o s p e r o u s  Pr o p e r t y  LL C 1 l 0 l I 68 2 4  Re g e n t  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l C a r i  Gi l s e t h 0 l 0 l l l 59 2 4  Wa s h b u r n  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l R y a n  Mc L u e n 1 l 0 l I I I 42 0 1  Wi n c h e s t e r  Ln S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l T h e r e s a  Bu r n s  & Er i c  Po e h l e r 3 l l 0 l l I I 49 1 2  Ze n i t h  Av e  N S i n g l e  Fa m i l y R e n e w a l F r a n k  Ji n  & Em i l y  Zh a o 2 l 0 l l l * CF S  = Ca l l s  Fo r  Se r v i c e  fo r  Re n e w a l  Li c e n s e s  On l y  (I n i t i a l  Li c e n s e s  ar e  no t  ap p l i c a b l e  to  ca l l s  fo r  se r v i c e  an d  wi l l  be  li s t e d  N/ A . ) **  Li c e n s e  Ty p e  Be i n g  Is s u e d  Ty p e  II  = 2  Ye a r            Ty p e  II I  = 1  Ye a r ** *  In i t i a l  li c e n s e s  wi l l  no t  sh o w  a  pr e v i o u s  li c e n s e  ty p e Al l  pr o p e r t i e s  ar e  cu r r e n t  on  Ci t y  ut i l i t i e s  an d  pr o p e r t y  ta x e s COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:R esolution Designating O fficial Newspaper Requested Council Action: - Approve resolution D esignating O fficial N ewspaper for 2019 Background: S ection 12.01 of the Brooklyn C enter C ity C harter requires the C ity C ouncil to annually designate a legal news paper of general c irculation of the C ity as its offic ial newspaper in which the C ity will publis h ordinances, bids , public hearing notic es , advertis ing for propos als , as s es s ments , bonds, financ ial reports , and other matters as required by law. S un Media has onc e again requested that the C ity C ounc il c onsider des ignating Brooklyn C enter S un-P ost to be the offic ial newspaper for 2019. Brooklyn C enter S un-P ost meets all nec es s ary requirements of a qualified news paper. T he rate s tructure is as follows: - $11.90 per column inc h (9 lines per inch= $1.32 per line). Budget Issues: T he 2019 budget inc ludes $5,000 for legal public ations . S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O perational Excellence Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER WHEREAS, Section 12.01 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter requires the City Council to annually at its first meeting of the year designate a legal newspaper of general circulation in the city as its official newspaper in which shall be published such ordinances and other matters as are required by law to be so published and such other matters as the council may deem it advisable and in the public interest to have published in this manner; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post has previously been so designated; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post meets all necessary requirements for designation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post is hereby designated as the official newspaper for the City of Brooklyn Center for the year 2019. January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Nathan R einhardt, F inance Director S UBJ EC T:R esolution Designating Depositories of C ity F unds Requested Council Action: - M otion to approve resolution designating depositories of city funds. Background: At the beginning of each fisc al year, in ac cordance with Minnesota S tatutes 118A.02 and C ity C ounc il P olic y 2.22.4.A, the C ity C ounc il c onsiders a resolution authorizing depositories for C ity funds. T he resolution inc ludes banks with a pres enc e in Brooklyn C enter as well as any banks with whom the C ity deals on a regular bas is throughout the year. T he attached resolution designates banks which may not currently hold C ity funds but whic h may during the fisc al year, bec ome a depos itory for C ity funds. O ther financial depos itories, such as the 4M F unds, are inc luded becaus e we are members of thos e depositories . Not all inves tment dealers /brokers are part of the C ity’s c urrent program but are authorized, after filing the appropriate Broker C ertific ation F orm, a requirement of Minnes ota S tatutes 118A, to transac t busines s with the C ity of Brooklyn C enter. If the C ity has no contac t or ac tivity with a dealer/broker during the previous fisc al year, that firm is removed and not included in the s uc ceeding year ’s list. All banks , depos itories, investment dealers and brokers, with the exc eption of the F ederal R es erve Bank of Minneapolis , are c hec ked for c ertific ation by F DI C , S I P C or other c ertific ation as required by Minnesota S tatutes 118A. All of this documentation is reviewed by the C ity’s auditors during the financ ial statement audit eac h year. P ropos ed deletions are shown in red s trikethrough and additions are s hown in blue underline in the attac hed res olution. Budget Issues: T here is no direct financ ial impac t on the C ity. S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, Section 7.01 of the City Charter provides the City Council with authority over City funds that includes the safekeeping and disbursement of public monies; and WHEREAS, Section 7.10 of the City Charter provides that City funds shall be disbursed by check bearing the actual or facsimile signature of the City Manager and City Treasurer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as follows: 1. That US Bank, NA is hereby designated as a depository for funds of the City of Brooklyn Center for operational banking and investment purposes. 2. That the following named bankers and brokers are hereby designated as additional depositories to be used for investment purposes: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund (4M Fund) Minnesota Municipal Money Market Plus Fund (4M Plus Fund) Minnesota Municipal Money Market Time Series Pools (4M Time Series) Northland Securities Oppenheimer & Co., Inc UBS Financial Services Wells Fargo Securities, LLC Moreton Capital Markets, LLC The City Treasurer is hereby authorized to deposit funds in accounts guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Securities Insurance Protection Corporation (SIPC), successors of the FDIC or SIPC or other governmental institutions insuring the safety and liquidity of public monies. Funds deposited with designated depositories in excess of the insurance limits available through FDIC, SIPC or its successor institutions shall be covered by collateral in the form of government securities held in the City’s name or other collateral proposed by the institution and approved by the City of not less than 110% of the value of the uninsured deposits. RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 3. That the following named clearinghouses for credit card transactions are hereby designated for accepting payments: Wells Fargo Merchant Services Elavon Incorporated Sage Payment Solutions Chase Paymentech 4. Wells Fargo Institutional Trust Services is hereby designated as the safekeeping depository for investment instruments in the City’s investment portfolio and as clearinghouse for the City’s investment portfolio transactions. 5. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager, the City Treasurer, or the Deputy City Treasurer to act for the City in all of its business activities with these designated depositories. January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:R esolution Approving the 2019 F ee S c hedule Requested Council Action: - Approve the resolution approving the 2019 F ee S chedule Background: Before you tonight for approval is the 2019 F ee S chedule. T his is a comprehensive doc ument that entails all of the fees for the city and is approved annually. C hanges to the F ee S chedule inc lude: updated planning commission fees; additional building permit fee for insulation; updated c ourtes y benc h fees ; and updated Tobacc o Violation fee. Budget Issues: No budget issues related to this item S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway * 55430-2199 763-569-3000 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org FEE SCHEDULE Licenses, Permits, Miscellaneous Services Adopted March 1987 Updated January 14, 2019 Fee Schedule Page 1 City of Brooklyn Center Introduction In March 1987 the Brooklyn Center City Council approved an amendment to the City Ordinances that removed the fees for licenses and permits from the City Ordinances and established fees by Council resolution. The resolutions establishing fees for licenses and permits were collated into the following fee schedule, and it is updated whenever fees are amended or new fees are established. It provides a means by which fees for permits, licenses, and miscellaneous services are incorporated into one document to aid employees who need to collect fees or provide public information regarding fees. Fees for licenses and permits are set forth by Council resolution. Fees for copies, research projects, maps, and ordinances are generally set by the City Manager. Fees relating to the Community Center and Centerbrook Golf Course can be obtained directly from the Department of Community Activities, Recreation, and Services and are not included in this fee schedule. Fees relating to the Earle Brown Heritage Center can be obtained directly from the Heritage Center and are not included in this fee schedule. Table of Contents Licenses ........................................ 2-5 Permits ......................................... 6-9 Miscellaneous Services ............ 10-17 Licenses City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 2 License Type Annual Fee Expiration City Code Amusement Device Operator Kiddie Ride Minn. Stat. 449.15 $15/location, plus $15/machine Res. 87-31 $10/ride June 30 23-2101 Animals (Cats and Dogs) Commercial Kennel Res. No. 97-180 $100 September 30 1-102 Bowling Alley Res. No. 97-180 $20/alley December 31 23-209.01 Cesspool Cleaning Res. No. 87-31 $25 April 30 7-501 Christmas Tree Sales Deposit Res. No. 97-180 $60/lot $100/lot January 5 23-1301 Filling Station First Nozzle/Hose Each Additional Nozzle/Hose Res. No. 97-180 $90 $10 December 31 23-402 Fireworks Temporary Stand Permanent Structure Res. No. 2004-65 $350/location $100/location December 31 19-403 Garbage and/or Rubbish Collection Company Vehicle Res. No. 97-180 $85 $25 June 30 7-103 Filming & Photography Res. No. 2019- $400.00 23-2500 Liquor – On-Sale Intoxicating (Restaurants and hotels) Earle Brown Heritage Center Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor (maximum is 3 consecutive days; no more than 12 days total per year) Special Event Permit (maximum is 10 consecutive days; no more than 40 days total per year) Club Up to 200 members 201-500 members 501-1,000 members 1,001-2,000 members 2,001-4,000 members 4,001-6,000 members Over 6,000 members Culinary Class (limited) Res. No. 2017-203 $6,500 $5,000 $25/day $25/day $300 $500 $650 $800 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $100 December 31 December 31 N/A N/A December 31 December 31 11-106 Liquor – Sunday Sales Res. No. 2017-203 $200 December 31 11-106 Licenses City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 3 License Type Annual Fee Expiration City Code Liquor – Consumption and Display Temporary (maximum 10 days for City) Res. No. 2017-203 $300 $25 December 31 N/A 11-106 Liquor – On-Sale Wine Res. No. 2017-203 $2,000 December 31 11-106 Liquor – On-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Temporary Res. No. 2017-203 $500 $10/day December 31 N/A 11-106 Liquor – Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Res. No. 2017-203 $100 December 31 11-106 Liquor – On-Sale Brew Pub On-Sale Intoxicating On-Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Res. No. 2017-203 $6,500 $500 December 31 11-106 Liquor – Off-Sale Brew Pub Res. No. 2017-203 $200 December 31 11-106 Liquor – On-Sale Brewer Taproom Res. No. 2017-203 $600 December 31 11-106 Liquor – On-Sale Microdistillery Cocktail Room Res. No. 2017-203 $600 December 31 11-106 Liquor – Off-Sale Microdistillery Res. No. 2017-203 $200 December 31 11-106 Liquor – Off-Sale Small Brewer License Res. No. 2017-203 $200 December 31 11-106 Liquor – Investigation Res. No. 2017-203 $500 if conducted within the State of Minnesota, or the actual cost not to exceed $10,000 if the investigation is required outside the State of Minnesota 11-114 Massage Establishment Establishment Investigation – Establishment Masseur or Masseuse Investigation – Masseur/Masseuse Res. No. 87-31 $3,000 $1,500 $50 $100 December 31 23-1703 Mechanical Systems Res. No. 97-180 $60 April 30 23-1500 Motor Vehicle Dealer Class A Class B Res. No. 97-180 $250 $75 April 30 23-1202 Pawnbroker Establishment Investigation Res. No. 2004-101 $3,000 $1,500 December 31 23-603 Public Dance Res. No. 97-180 $175 December 31 23-301 Licenses City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 4 License Type Annual Fee Expiration City Code Rap Parlors, Conversation Parlors, Adult Encounter Groups, Adult Sensitivity Groups, Escort Services, Model Services, Dancing Services, or Hostess Services Investigation Res. No. 87-31 $1,500 $1,500 December 31 23-1804 Rental Single Family Dwelling Initial License/New Owner Renewal License (no change in license holder) Two Family Dwelling Each Rental Unit Multiple Family Dwelling Each Building Each Unit Minimum Base Fee License Reinstatement Conversion to Rental A residential property converted to a rental property or a registered residential vacant building re- occupied as a rental property. This applies to lawful single-family and single-family attached dwellings. Res. No. 2005-152 $400 $300 $200 $200 $18 $450 Res. No. 2011-65 $100 Res. No. 2008-150 $500 Biennial 12-901 12-910 12-902 Saunas or Sauna Baths Establishment Investigation Res. No. 87-31 $3,000 $1,500 December 31 23-1602 Secondhand Goods Dealer Investigation Res. No. 98-227 $750, plus $1.50 per reportable transaction $1,500 December 31 23-652 Sign Hanger Res. No. 97-180 $60 April 30 34-160 Taxicab Res. No. 2004-101 $100/vehicle December 31 23-702 Tobacco Related Products Investigation Res. No. 97-180 $150 Res. No. 2014-57 $150 December 31 23-101 Transient Accommodations Level I Level II Level III Res. No. 2017-19 $150 $200 $300 April 30 23-2401 Permits City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 5 Permit Type Fee Ordinance Online Permit Transaction Fee Per Online Permit Res. No. 2011-64 $3.50 Administrative Land Use Outdoor church & civic functions, charities, carnivals, etc. Off-site signs for civic functions or community events Outdoor nursery & garden center sales & displays Miscellaneous outdoor sales, displays, or promotional events Miscellaneous outdoor sales, displays, or promotional events for gasoline service stations Car wash fund raisers Res. No. 99-172; 2005-65 $25/10 days $25/10 days per location $100/30 weeks $50/10 days $50/30 days $25/10 days 35-800 Alarm Fire Police Res. No. 93-233 1/No Charge 2/$150 3+/$300 1-4/No Charge 5/$50; after 5, each alarm increase by $25 23-2006 Permits City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 6 Permit Type Fee Ordinance Building and Fire Protection Valuation $1 to $1,000 Valuation $1,001 to $2,000 Valuation $2,001 to $25,000 Valuation $25,001 to $50,000 Valuation $50,001 to $100,000 Valuation $100,001 to $500,000 Valuation $500,000 to $1,000,000 Valuation $1,000,001 and up Plan Check Fee Investigation Fee Residential Insulation up to 2 units Residential Siding Replacement up to 4 units Residential Family Roof Replacement up to 4 units, not including flat roofs Egress Window Window or Door Replacement Residential Deck up to 4 Units Res. No. 2018-09 $49.50 $49.50 for the first $1,000 plus $3.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 $82.00 for the first $2,000 plus $14.85 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 $423.55 for the first $25,000 plus $10.70 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 $691.05 for the first $50,000 plus $7.45 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 $1,063.55 for the first $100,000 plus $6 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 $3,463.55 for the first $500,000 plus $5.10 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $6,013.55 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 65% of the amount of the permit fee Same amount as building permit fee $60 $150 $150 $100 up to two windows; $150 for 3 or more $100 up to two windows; $150 for 3 or more $200 3-103 Cesspool Cleaning Permit Res. No. 87-32 $18.75 7-502 Courtesy Bench Permit Inspection Res. No. 2007-47 $50/bench $50/bench 23-902 23-903 Demolition Permit Res. No. 2005-65 $50 23-1501 Permits City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 7 Permit Type Fee Ordinance Electrical Minimum Fee for an Inspection Minimum Fee for an Inspection per unit with 3 or more connected units (Townhomes, Condos, duplex) Maximum for Single Family Residential (New or Remodel) Maximum for Commercial Multi Family Units Swimming Pools New Service Panel or Generators 0 to 300 AMP Each additional 100 AMP Change Out Service in Same Location Change Out Sub Panel in Same Location Each Circuit or Feeder 0 to 30 AMP 31 to 100 AMP Each additional 100 AMP Street Lights Standard Traffic Signal Transformer 0 to 10 kilovolt-amperes 11-75 kilovolt-amperes 76-299 kilovolt-amperes Over 299 kilovolt-amperes Fire Alarm & Energy Management Device Lighting Retrofit Remote Control/Signal Circuits Solar PV System Rating 0-5,000 watts 5,001-10,000 watts 10,001-20,000 watts 20,001-30,000 watts 30,001-40,000 watts 40,001 and larger Investigation Fee (double the fee) Cancelled Permit Handling Fee Reinspection Fee State Surcharge Refund issued only for overpayment on permits that exceed $100 Res. No. 2018-09 $40 per trip $24 per Unit Per Trip $175 (for 3 inspections) Additional @ $40 No limit $70/unit $80 per trip plus circuits $50 $14/each $100 $40 $8/each $10/each Add $5 per 100 AMP $4/each $7/each $10 $40 $60 $150 $10 first 10 openings $0.65 per fixture $0.75 per device $60 $100 $150 $200 $250 $250 and $25 for each additional 10,000 watts $100 Minimum $40 $40 $1 3-103 3-103 G 6 Flood Plain Use Up to 1 acre 1 acre to 5 acres Over 5 acres Res. No. 2005-65 $50 $50/acre $250 plus $37.50 per acre for each acre or fraction thereof over 5 acres 35-2182 Housemoving Permit Code Compliance Review Prior to Moving Structure into City Res. No. 2005-65 $200 $100 23-1501 Permits City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 8 Permit Type Fee Ordinance Land Disturbing Activities Permit Res. No. 2005-162 $50 35-235 Mechanical Systems Valuation $0 to $500 Valuation $501 to $50,000 Valuation Over $50,000 Mechanical Plan Review (only when submitted without a building permit) 2” and less diameter pipe 1-3 fixtures Additional openings 2” and over diameter pipe 1-3 fixtures Additional opening Residential Boiler or Fireplace up to 4 units Residential Gas Stove or Dryer up to 4 units Res. No. 2018-09 $25 $25 plus 2% of value of any amount in excess of $500 $1,012.50 plus 1% of value of any amount in excess of $50,000 65% of base permit fee $5.75 each $2.50 each $15 each $3.25 each $60 $60 3-103 Planning Commission Fees* Zoning Code Text Amendment Rezonings Site and Building Plan Preliminary Plat Variance Interim Use Permit (IUP) IUP Extension/Amendment Special Use Permit (SUP) SUP Amendment Extension of Special Use Permit Appeal Planned Unit Development (PUD) PUD Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment * For all Planning Commission Applications a refundable escrow of $1,000 will be added to the fee to cover any additional costs associated with the review of the application. Additional escrow may be required subject to the determination of the City Planner. Res. No. 2005-65 $500 $1,050 $750 $400 $200 $250 $150 $250 $250 $100 $200 $1,800 $700 $1,050 35-210 35-230 15-104 35-240 35-310 35-310 35-220 35-220 35-220 35-251 35-355 35-355 Plumbing Minimum Fee Repair or alteration of existing system New residential or commercial building Plumbing Plan Review (only when submitted without a building permit) Residential Water Heater up to 4 units Residential Water Softener up to 4 units Residential Water Heater and Softener up to 4 units Plumbing Fixtures Res. No. 2018-09 $25 2% of estimated cost 2% of estimated cost 65% of base permit fee $60 $60 $60 $60 up to 3 fixtures; $10 for each additional 3-103 Permits City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 9 Permit Type Fee Ordinance Right-Of-Way Administration Fee Excavation Fee Obstruction Fee Pole Attachment Fee Extension Delay Penalty Res. No. 2018-42 $100 per permit $250 per permit $200 per permit $1,500 per site $50 per permit $50/day for pavement; $25/day for boulevard/turf 25-1009 Sewer and Water Sewer or water connection Sewer or water disconnection Sewer and water disconnection New commercial sewer and water connection New residential sewer and water connection Commercial/Industrial fire line Water/Sewer repair Storm Water Minimum Fee Res. No. 2005-65 $50 $50 $90 $150 $100 $50 $50 $50 $50 3-103 Sign 50 sq ft in area or less Over 50 sq ft in area Minimum Fee Footing inspection, when required Res. No. 2005-65 $50 $50/1st 50 sq ft and $15.00 for each additional 50 sq ft or fraction $50 $50 34-150 Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 10 Service Fee Abatement Application (Assessing) Taxpayer caused only (others no charge) $45 Abatement (City-Facilitated)/Administrative Service Charge Cost up to $999 $1,000 to $4,999 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 or more Each junk or inoperable vehicle Res. No. 2008-150 $150 $300 $750 $1,250 $1,750 $150 Accident Reports (Police) $0.25 per page $0.15 per page, if subject of data $0.50 per report, commercial user [defined as a user who requests access to more than five reports per month Minn. Stat. 169.09, Subd. 13(5) (f)] Administrative Penalty System Fees Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Violation Type (Ordinance reference) Level Waste container setback violation (7-102) 1 Watering restriction violation (4-202) 1 Local Traffic and Parking (27) 1 Parking Surface violation (12-316) 2 All other city code violations, designated as a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor 2 Animal (10) 2 Failure to register a vacant property (12-1500) 2 Failure to obtain a permit or license 3 Tenant protection violation (12-912D) 4 Hearing Request Deposit Fee Special Assessment Charge for unpaid fine amounts that are specially assessed Res. No. 2010-79 $60 $125 $300 $500 $20 $30 Appeal Filing Fee – Chapters 12 and 19 $50 Res. No. 2005-65 Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 11 Service Fee Copy Charges for Public Government Data Requests Not From the Data Subject 100 Pages or Fewer Black and White Photocopies 8.5 x 11 or 8.5 x 14 Two-Sided Copy (8.5 x 11 or 8.5 x 14) All Other Public Government Data Requests The City will charge the requester actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and transmitting copies of the data or the data themselves Exception: There will be no charges for searching, retrieving, compiling, and electronically transmitting readily available data Minn. Stat. 13.03, Subd. 3 (c) $0.25 $0.50 Actual Costs Labor – $0.40 per minute Paper – $0.01 per sheet Black/White Photocopier – $0.01 per page Color Photocopier - $0.07 per page Black/White Printer – $0.02 per page Color LaserJet Printer – $0.09 per color page Other Actual Costs that may or may not be included – refer to the document Fees For Providing Copies of Public Government Data compiled by the State of Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division at www.ipad.state.mn.us or 651-296-6733 Total Actual Costs require that you add labor cost at $0.40 per minute to the supply and materials costs to establish total actual costs Copy Charges for Public Government Data Requests By the Subject of Data When the requester is the subject of the data, the City will not charge for searching for and retrieving data. The requester will be charged the actual costs associated with making, certifying, compiling, or transmitting copies of the data themselves. Exception: There will be no charge for compiling and electronically transmitting readily available data. Actual Costs $0.15 per page Dogs Registration – Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Contest Declaration Hearing Fee Review Declaration Hearing Fee Contest Sterilization Requirement for Potentially Dangerous Boarding Fee Impounding Penalty $35/annual Res. No. 2004-132 $250 Res. No. 2014-43 $100 Res. No. 2014-43 $250 Res. No. 2015-31 Joint & Cooperative Agreement with PUPS $31/day Fingerprinting (Police) Brooklyn Center resident or Brooklyn Center business owner and/or owner’s employees (Saturday 1:00 pm to 7:00 pm) $10/card Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 12 Service Fee Franchise (Natural Gas) Residential Commercial A Commercial Industrial B Commercial C SVDF A SVDF B LVDF Franchise (Electric) Residential Small Commercial & Industrial – Non-Demand Small Commercial & Industrial – Demand Large Commercial & Industrial Public Street Lighting Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand Municipal Pumping – Demand Ord. No. 2016-10 $1.61/month $1.68/month $5.46/month $21.84/month $54.59/month $104.81/month $104.81/month Ord. No. 2016-09 $1.60/month $4.00/month $22.00/month $100.00/month $13.00/month $13.00/month $13.00/month Inspections Fire Inspection, Commercial Initial Inspection First Re-Inspection Second Re-Inspection Third Re-Inspection Fourth and Subsequent Re-Inspections Fire Inspection, Daycare Reinspection A reinspection fee for the second reinspection and each subsequent reinspection shall be collected from the applicant, owner, or responsible party. Properties with 1 to 3 units Properties with 4 or more units Re-Occupancy Inspection A property maintenance re-occupancy inspection fee is required for registered vacant buildings. Apartment/Condo Townhome Single Family Duplex (same owner) Triplex (same owner) Fourplex (same owner) Res. No. 2011-55 No Charge No Charge $100 $150 $200 $50/each Res. No. 2009-130 Res. No. 2008-150 $100 $100 for each common area, plus $50 for each unit Res. No. 2008-151 $115 $195 $195 $275 $415 Res. No. 2009-29 $550 Res. No. 2009-29 Intoxilyzers Logs (Police) $5/page Maps 8 1/2 x 11 8 1/2 x 11 with Imaging (aerials) 11 x 17 11 x 17 with Imaging (aerials) 24 x 24 24 x 24 with Imaging (aerials) 23 x 36 23 x 36 with Imaging (aerials) $3 $5 $4 $6 $10 $15 $15 $25 NSF Check (Finance) $30 Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 13 Service Fee Plat – Final (Engineering) $200 Res. No. 92-131 Posting and/or Removal of Posting for Residential Properties Identified as Unsafe for Human Occupancy Res. No. 2005-65 $50 Police Reports (Police) $0.25 per page $0.15 per page, if subject of data $0.50 per page, commercial user Recycling Utility Minimum charge per household per quarter Delinquent account, quarterly charge Certification for collection with property taxes Res. No. 2018-218 $11.98/quarter Greater of $3 or 10% of unpaid balance $30 Right Of Way Registration $1,000/New $25/Renewal Sanitary Sewer Utility Base Rate Quarterly Residential Single Family Apartment Senior Citizen Non-Residential Rate SAC charge set by MCES Delinquent account, quarterly charge Certification for collection with property taxes Line cleaning charge Sanitary Sewer Connection Res. No. 2018-215 $84.89 $59.42 $46.69 $3.58 per 1,000 gallons Fee established by MCES Greater of $3 or 10% of unpaid balance $30 Labor, materials, equipment, and overhead Established annually by resolution Satisfaction/Sub Agreements (Community Development) $50 Site Plans/Surveys (Community Development) 8 1/2 x 11 copies $5 Special Assessment Interest Rate Res. No. 2017-168 4.0 Percent Special Assessment Search (Assessing) $25 Special Computer Search (Police) $7/each address Storm Sewer Utility (quarterly rates) Base Rate Cemeteries and Golf Courses Parks Single Family, Duplex, Townhouse School, Government Buildings Multiple Family, Churches Commercial, Industrial Vacant Land Delinquent account, quarterly charge Certification for collection with property taxes Private facility cleaning charge Res. No. 2018-216 $60.24/acre $15.07/acre $30.12/acre $15.07/lot $75.31/acre $180.71/acre $301.20/acre As assigned Greater of $3 or 10% of unpaid balance $30 Labor, materials, equipment, and overhead Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 14 Service Fee Street Light Utility (quarterly rates) Single, Double, and Multiple Family Residential Parks Schools, Government Buildings, Churches Retail and Service-Office Commercial and Industrial Vacant Land and Open Space Delinquent account, quarterly charge Certification for collection with property taxes Res. No. 2018-217 $6.55/dwelling unit $10.90/acre $21.80/acre $32.69/acre $32.69/acre As assigned Greater of $3 or 10% of unpaid balance $30 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates R-1 zoned, used as one-family site that cannot be subdivided Street Storm Drainage R-2 zoned, or used as a two -family site that cannot be subdivided Street Storm Drainage R-3 zoned (per unit) Street Storm Drainage Partial Street Reconstruction R-1 zoned, used as one-family site that cannot be subdivided Street R-2 zoned, or used as a two -family site that cannot be subdivided Street R-3 zoned (per unit) Street Pavement Rehabilitation R-1 zoned, used as one-family site that cannot be subdivided Street R-2 zoned, or used as a two -family site that cannot be subdivided Street R-3 zoned (per unit) Street R-4, R-5, R-6, or R-7 zoned districts Res. No. 2018-190 $4,623 per lot $1,387 per lot $61.6400 per front foot with a $4,623 per lot minimum $18.4933 per front foot with a $1,387 per lot minimum Assessable frontage x $58.0400 Number of residential units Assessable frontage x $17.4133 Number of residential units $3,467 per lot $46.2267 per front foot with a $3,467 per lot minimum Assessable frontage x $46.2267 Number of residential units $1,529 per lot $20.3867 per front foot with a $1,529 per lot minimum Assessable frontage x $20.3867 Number of residential units Based on an evaluation of the project cost and the project benefit for each project Tow to City Property (Police) Tow charge plus $15 administrative fee Tree Contractor Registration Res. No. 2000-09 $35 Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 15 Service Fee Tree Removal Each non-assessed diseased tree/stump removal (by agreement) Special Assessments Service Charge Capitalized Interest Charge (assessed trees only) $50 $30/parcel on which a special assessment is levied $30/per tree Vacant Building Registration An annual registration fee shall be collected from the applicant, owner, or responsible party. Category 1 – property vacant for less than 1 year and does not have any code violation or has not been issued a compliance notice for code violations Category 2 – property vacant for less than 1 year and has a code violation(s) or has been issued a compliance notice for code violations Category 3 – property vacant for 1 year up to 3 years Category 4 – property vacant for 3 years or more Res. No. 2008-151 $100 $400 $1,000 $3,000 Vacation – Street, Alley, Easement (Engineering) $125 Res. No. 92-132 Video Tape Duplicating (Police) $20 Water and Sanitary Sewer Connection Commercial/Industrial Water > 5 Acres Commercial/Industrial Sewer > 5 Acres Commercial/Industrial Water < 5 Acres Commercial/Industrial Sewer < 5 Acres Retail/Office Water > 5 Acres Retail/Office Sewer > 5 Acres Retail/Office Water < 5 Acres Retail/Office Sewer < 5 Acres Multi Family Water > 5 Acres Multi Family Sewer > 5 Acres Multi Family Water < 5 Acres Multi Family Sewer < 5 Acres Single Family Water per connection Single Family Sewer per connection Res. No.2001-161 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500 $5,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 16 Service Fee Water Utility Water Conservation Rate 5/8” and 3/4” Meter 0-30,000 gallons per quarter 30,001-60,000 gallons per quarter 60,001 or more gallons per quarter Base Rate Quarterly Minimum Rate 1” Meter 1 1/2” Meter 2” Meter 3” Meter 4” Meter 6” Meter 8” Meter 10” Meter Water Meter Charge 5/8” or 3/4” Water Meter Charge Larger than 3/4” Delinquent account, quarterly charge Certification for collection with property taxes Quarterly Fire Service Line Charge Fire protection inspection Private hydrant maintenance Service Restoration, Monday through Friday (except holidays) Between the hours of 7:30 AM and 3:00 PM Service Restoration, Saturday, Sunday, Holidays and Between the hours of 3:00 PM and 7:30 AM Assistance with Seasonal Shut-down and Restoration of Commercial Irrigation Systems, Monday through Friday (except holidays) Only Between the hours of 3:00 PM and 7:30 AM Curb stop stand pipe repair Hydrant Meters (water use will be paid in addition to the rental fee at the Water Conservation Rate) 5/8” or 3/4” Meter Deposit Rental Fee (per month or potion thereof) 3” Meter Deposit Rental Fee (per month or potion thereof) Penalty for violation of odd-even sprinkling/watering ordinance Res. No. 2018-214 $15.52 Quarterly Base Charge $2.59 per 1,000 gallons $3.22 per 1,000 gallons $4.81 per 1,000 gallons $3.24 per 1,000 gallons $45.11 $58.00 $112.78 $225.57 $380.24 $870.05 $1,647.82 $2,197.10 $149.00 Actual cost + $2.00 Greater of $3 or 10% of unpaid balance $30 $12.50 Res. No. 2007-140 $52 Labor, materials, equipment, and overhead $31 $83 $45 per hour, 1 hour minimum $40 Res. No. 2013-28 $125 $25 $1,200 $150 $25/day (Res. No. 2004-70) Miscellaneous Services City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule Page 17 Service Fee Weed Inspection/Removal Weed Cutter’s Fee Reinspection Fee Special Assessments Service Charge Capitalized Interest Charge (assessed weeds only) Res. No. 2000-09 $45/hour $100 $30 per parcel on which a special assessment is levied $10 per notice Well Water Test $10 Zoning Letters (Community Development) $75 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2019 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has a comprehensive fee schedule that is used by staff during the year; and WHEREAS, this this fee schedule has been amended for the fees for 2019. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 2019 Fee Schedule be adopted. January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Nathan R einhardt, F inance Director S UBJ EC T:R esolution G ranting C orporate Authority for S igning of C hecks and Trans actions of F inanc ial Busines s Matters Requested Council Action: - M otion to approve resolution granting corporate authority for signing of checks and transactions of financial business matters. Background: Many inves tment firms require the adoption of a resolution by the corporate board, in this case the C ity C ouncil, authorizing spec ific officers to trans act financ ial bus iness involving treasury notes , certificates of depos it and other sec urities . T he attached resolution fulfills that requirement by appointing the C ity Manager, the F inanc e Direc tor, who serves as the C ity Treas urer, and the As s is tant F inance Director, who s erves as the Deputy C ity Treasurer, as the offic ers authorized to transac t s uc h busines s . Budget Issues: T here are no budget is s ues to cons ider. S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING CORPORATE AUTHORITY FOR SIGNING OF CHECKS AND TRANSACTIONS OF FINANCIAL BUSINESS MATTERS WHEREAS, the City Treasurer must be a signatory to any and all checks issued by the City in payment of obligations of the City; and WHEREAS, specific individuals must be designated by the City Council as authorized to sell, assign and endorse for transfer various financial instruments in the regular conduct of City business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Cornelius L. Boganey, City Manager, Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director and Andrew Splinter, Assistant Finance Director, are hereby authorized to sell, assign and endorse for transfer certificates representing treasury notes, bonds, or other securities now registered or hereafter registered in the name of this municipality. January 14, 2019 _____________ Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Nathan R einhardt, F inance Director S UBJ EC T:R esolution O pting not to Waive Limited Tort Liability for 2019 Requested Council Action: - M otion to adopt resolution opting not to waive limited tort liability for 2019 Background: Each year the C ity mus t chos e whether to waive tort liability limit protections of Minnes ota S tatutes 466.04 as part of the insuranc e polic y renewal applic ation proc es s . M.S . 466.04 s tates that the maximum liability for a city for any claim is $500,000 with an aggregate maximum of $1,500,000 per incident. In pas t years the C ity C ouncil has chos en not to waive the liability limits and the regular premium for ins urance has covered all claims. If the C ity were to waive the limits s et by s tatute, it would be prudent to purc hase additional ins urance coverage to cover possible higher awards in liability c laims . P remiums for s uc h insuranc e would be approximately $9,000 per year. Budget Issues: T he 2019 budget anticipates leaving the no waiver option in place for 2019 and has anticipated ins urance premiums bas ed on that no waiver option. Waiving the statutory limits would require that at approximately $9,000 in additional premium costs be allocated for 2019 and in eac h s uc ceeding year. S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT LIABILITY FOR 2019 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has an option to waive its protection under the tort liability limitation contained in Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and WHEREAS, the statutory tort limit for 2019 is $500,000 per individual with an aggregate of $1,500,000 per incident; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has not opted to waive its rights to limited tort liability in past years and is required to make a declaration of its intention every year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City does not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04 for 2019. January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LIABILITY COVERAGE – WAIVER FORM Members who obtain liability coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the member’s effective date of coverage. Return completed form to your underwriter or email to pstech@lmc.org. The decision to waive or not waive the statutory tort limits must be made annually by the member’s governing body, in consultation with its attorney if necessary. Members who obtain liability coverage from LMCIT must decide whether to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision has the following effects: • If the member does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant could recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether the member purchases the optional LMCIT excess liability coverage. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability cove rage, a single claimant could recover up to $2,000,000 for a single occurrence (under the waive option, the tort cap liability limits are only waived to the extent of the member’s liability coverage limits, and the LMCIT per occurrence limit i s $2,000,000). The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $2,000,000, regardless of the number of claimants. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. LMCIT Member Name: __________________________________________________________________________ Check one: o The member DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. § 466.04. o The member WAIVES the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. § 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of member’s governing body meeting: __________________________________________________________ Signature: _______ Position: _______________ COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Todd Berg, Interim F ire C hief S UBJ EC T:R esolution Amending S ection 2.94 of C ity C ounc il C ode of P olic y to Include P aid-O n-C all F irefighters Requested Council Action: - Approve the resolution amending S ection 2.94 of the C ity of B rooklyn C enter C ity C ouncil C ode of P olicies to include P aid-O n-C all F irefighters Background: C urrently, there is not a way to recognize part-time paid-on-call firefighters for their s ervic e to the C ity and community at the C ity C ouncil level. S ection 2.94 of the C ity C ouncil C ode of P olicies does have provisions for employee rec ognition for regular full time and part time employees who work more than 20 hours per week. Amending the polic y as proposed would allow for recognition of paid-on-call firefighters with 20 or more years of service. Budget Issues: T he Employee S ervice R ecognition P rogram is funded through the G eneral G overnment budget. S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity 2.94 Employee Service Recognition Program The City of Brooklyn Center’s Employee Service Recognition Program is to recognize City employees for years of service to the City. Effective January 1, 1997, the City of Brooklyn Center’s Employee Service Recognition Program will include recognition of part-time City employees for their years of service to the City. The program recognizes all regular full-time and part-time employees who work 20 or more hours a week year round for the City of Brooklyn Center and part-time Fire Department employees retiring in good standing. The recognition is accomplished by the presentation of awards by the City Manager or by the Department Director. Awards are for recognition of years of service as follows: Five Years Awards such as City of Brooklyn Center sweatshirt and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to employee. 10 Years Awards such as an engraved paperweight or engraved key chain and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 15 Years Awards such as an engraved letter opener, pocketknife, or desk clock and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 20 Years Awards such as an engraved desk set and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. Council recognizes years of employment at a Council meeting. 25 Years Awards such as an engraved wall clock or wristwatch and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. Council recognizes years of employment at a Council meeting. 30 Years Awards such as an engraved weather instrument and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. Council recognizes years of employment at a Council meeting. Awarded Upon Retirement To Employee Who Has Completed Ten Years Or More Of Service Or A Part-Time Fire Department Employee With 20 Or More Years Of Service : Awarded personalized Council resolution giving thanks for the work and dedication of the retiring employee mounted on a plaque presented by the City Manager. Employee Service Recognition Program is funded through the budget. Reference: City Council Resolution No. 97-25 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 2.94 OF CITY COUNCIL CODE OF POLICY TO INCLUDE PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTERS WHEREAS, Section 2.94 of the City Council Code of Policy, Employee Service Recognition Program provides for recognizing employees for their years of service to the City; and WHEREAS, the recognition program does not apply to paid-on-call firefighters who have extended years of service to the City; and WHEREAS, years of dedicated service to the City as a paid -on-call firefighter should be recognized by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the public interest to update the Council Code of Policy such that paid-on-call firefighters who retire in good standing with 20 or more years of service can be recognized by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Section 2.94 of the City Council Code of Policy be and hereby is amended to include paid-on-call firefighters January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager S UBJ EC T:R esolution R ec ognizing S ervice and C ontributions of Mayor Tim Willson Requested Council Action: - M otion to approve resolution recognizing service and contribution of M ayor Tim Willson Background: Tim Willson was elec ted Mayor of the C ity O f Brooklyn C enter in November 2006, after s erving the C ity for many years in several c apacities , inc luding the C harter C ommis s ion and as C hair of the P lanning C ommis s ion for several terms . Mayor Willson was subs equently re-elec ted as Mayor in 2010 and 2014, serving the res idents and citizens of Brooklyn C enter for 12 c onsec utive years. Having s erved the C ity faithfully and effec tively for such a lengthy period of time it is fitting to recognize Mayor Willson for his s ervic e and c ontributions. C ons is tent with pas t practice of the C ity, the attached res olution in honor of Mayor Willson and his legacy has been prepared for your cons ideration. Budget Issues: T here are know budgetary c onsiderations. S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e RESOLUTION RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF TIM WILLSON FOR TWELVE YEARS OF DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AS MAYOR WHEREAS, Tim Willson served as Mayor for the City of Brooklyn Center for twelve years from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, his service to the City and his consistent leadership have contributed substantially to the sound progress and development of the city including but not limited to: • Bass Lake Road Streetscape • Forty-five miles of neighborhood infrastructure improvements • Shingle Creek Crossing Development • FBI Regional Headquarters • 47% reduction in Part 1 Crime • Establishment of Sister City relationship with Voinjama City, Lofa County, Republic of Liberia • Nationally Recognized Performance Based Rental Housing Program • Renew And Rebuild Affordable Homeownership Program • The Sanctuary Affordable Senior Assisted Housing • Surly Brewery • Maranatha Redevelopment And Senior Housing Expansion • Five Improved and New Luther Auto Dealerships • The Embassy Suites Hotel • HOM Furniture • Bank Of America • Top Golf Recreational and Event Center; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic efforts for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his services and achievements for the betterment of the city be permanently recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Tim Willson is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center, and this resolution serves as a visible and lasting expression of gratitude for the leadership and service he has rendered and the benefits he has secured to the citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center. January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Nathan R einhardt, F inance Director S UBJ EC T:C ertificate of Ac hievement for Exc ellenc e in F inanc ial R eporting Requested Council Action: - M otion to acknowledge the C ertificate of Achievement award for the C ity of B rooklyn C enter’s 2017 C omprehensive Annual F inancial R eport (C AF R ) Background: T he G overnment F inanc e O fficers Assoc iation of the United S tates and C anada (G F O A) s ponsors a program aimed at ac hieving excellence and cons is tency in financ ial reporting. T he award was received by the C ity of Brooklyn C enter for its C omprehensive Annual F inancial R eport for the year ended December 31, 2017. T he C ertificate of Ac hievement is the highes t form of recognition for excellence in s tate and loc al government financial reporting. In order to be awarded a C ertific ate of Achievement, a government must publis h an eas ily readable and effic iently organized c omprehens ive annual financial report. T his report mus t s atisfy both generally acc epted acc ounting princ iples and applic able legal requirements . Its attainment repres ents a s ignificant acc omplis hment by government and its management. T he award-winning C AF R has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program inc luding demonstrating a c onstruc tive “s pirit of full disc los ure” to clearly c ommunicate its financ ial story. W hile all members of the F inanc e Department c ontributed to the achievement of this dis tinction, spec ial recognition s hould be given to Assistant F inanc e Direc tor Andrew S plinter for his diligent efforts and his expertis e in preparation of the report and achievement of this award. S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Tim G annon, C hief of P olic e S UBJ EC T:An O rdinance Amending C hapter 23 of the Brooklyn C enter C ity C ode R egarding Hospitality Acc ommodations Requested Council Action: - M otion to open public hearing - Take public input - M otion to close the public hearing - M otion to approve the S econd R ea d ing, a d opt a n O rdin a n ce a u thorizin g a men d men ts to C h a p ter 23 of the B rooklyn C enter C ity C ode R egarding H ospitality Accommodations Background: At the Dec ember 10, 2018, C ity C ouncil meeting a first reading of the propos ed c hanges to the Hospitality O rdinanc e was presented. C ity s taff pres ented the ordinance inc lusive of the following c hanges. 1. All references to the word "transient" have been c hanged to "hospitality." 2. S ix basic best prac tic es were identified and applied to all lodging hospitality bus inesses within the C ity: A. A clearly written C hec k-in P olic y which requires a credit/debit c ard to reserve a room and guarantee payment at check-in. B. A guest regis try whic h inc ludes name and home addres s of the primary guest; make, model, and lic ense plate of vehic le; and form of payment. C . P rovide an annual training to all s taff in cooperation with the C ity of Brooklyn C enter. D. Ensure that all officers of the owners hip group, managers , and other respons ible employees shall provide their name, addres s , email, and telephone number to the C ity. E. A manager or other respons ible employee mus t be on premises at all times . F. A policy to ins pect rooms of guests who refuse maid service for three cons ecutive days or behave s uspic iously in a manner that the hospitality staff, bas ed on training and experience, c ould reas onably sus pect is not lawful. 3. T he definition of a ‘c all for s ervic e’ related to this ordinance was reiterated: “A call for service – is any criminal ac tivity or violation of c ity c ode requiring a police res ponse; except domestics and proactive policing meas ures, observed by the C ity c onc erning a lodging hos pitality busines s and is res ponded to by the C ity.” O nly a c all for s ervic e that is verified by the responding polic e offic er as being a valid call for service s hall be inc luded in the annual c alls for s ervic e c alculation. 4. We will utilize a point s ystem for the ‘annual calls for service.’ T he method to determine annual calls for s ervic e is calc ulated by the total number of points per polic e c all type in a year us ing the enhanc ed point s ystem. Dividing that res ult by the number of rooms in that spec ific lodging hospitality bus iness. T his process will s pecific ally identify each polic e c all and assign an appropriate point total bas ed on the s everity of the inc ident. 5. T he propos ed ‘enhanc ed point s ystem’ is as follows : 5 P oints Violent C rime 3 P oints O ther P art 1 C rime 2 P oints P art 2 C rimes and All O ther C alls for S ervic e (P er O rdinanc e) -1 P oint Hotel/Motel Employee C alls for P olice **O ne point would be removed per oc currenc e. 6. A Health and S afety Ins pection form is attached. T his form would be utilized for only those lodging hospitality bus inesses that have a Level 2 or 3 lic ense type, bas ed on their police calls for service history. T he inspec tions will be conduc ted by the C ity’s hous ing and c ommunity standards department s taff in partners hip with police department s taff. It is believed that the modific ations to the ordinance will have a pos itive impac t by decreasing public safety calls for service and inc reas ing safety for all who vis it Brooklyn C enter ’s lodging hos pitality busines s es as well as their employees. P leas e note in S ection 23-2409 Item F. the term transient was s till written in the firs t reading of the ordinanc e. T his sec ond reading has it amended to hos pitality. Budget Issues: T he additional s afety and health ins pection required for the Level 2 or 3 lic ensed properties will involve s taff from Hous ing and C ommunity S tandards . A review of the current and potential lodging hos pitality busines s s tatis tic s on any given year the ins pections may be necessary for two or three lodging hos pitality busines s properties located within the C ity. Based on an evaluation of a Hous ing and C ommunity S tandard staff study, no additional staff would be needed to c onduct the health and s afety ins pections. As such there are no budget is s ues to report. S trategic Priorities and Values: Enhanc ed C ommunity Image, S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity 1 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. 2018-17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE REGARDING HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN: Article I. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 23, Sections 23-2400 through 23-2415 are hereby amended by deleting them in their entirety and replacing them with the following: HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS Section 23-2400. PURPOSE. It is the purpose of these Sections 23-2400 through 23- 2415 to ensure that hotels and motels (referred to collectively in these Sections as a “hospitality accommodation”) are complying with certain minimum standards and are implementing measures as may be needed to discourage the use of their facilities for criminal activities in order to protect the safety of their guests and the public. Those owning and operating hospitality accommodations in the City have a responsibility to ensure their guests and visitors have accommodations that are safe, secure, free from unreasonable noise, nuisances, and threats to their safety and security. Section 23-2401. LICENSE REQUIRED. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to operate a hospitality accommodation in the City without a hospitality accommodation license issued pursuant to Sections 23-2400 through 23-2415. A separate license is required for each hospitality accommodation property. Section 23-2402. DEFINITIONS A. :Annual calls for service” – The aggregate total of all the points, specified in Section 23-2404(E), assigned to the calls for service to a hospitality accommodation property in a calendar year divided by the total number of lodging units in the hospitality accommodation as determined by the City. B. “Call for service” – Includes any of the following: 1. Any report made to the police department of criminal activity or violation of the city code requiring a police response from or concerning a hospitality accommodation in connection with an incident occurring at that hospitality accommodation property, except calls of domestic assault; or 2. Any incident observed by police concerning a hospitality accommodation property and is responded to by a police officer. 2 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 Only a call for service that is verified by the responding police officer as being a valid call for service shall be included in the annual calls for service calculation for the purposes of these Sections 23-2400 through 23-2415. C. “Hospitality accommodation” – Any facility such as a hotel, motel, condominium, resort, or any other facility or place offering six or more lodging units to guests for periods of less than thirty days, but not including jails, hospitals, care facilities, senior living centers, residential treatment facilities, prisons, detention homes, and similar facilities. D. “Hospitality accommodation property” – Any land containing a facility for hospitality accommodation including any associated parking areas, recreation areas, loading areas, or other amenities located on the same parcel of property. E. “Hospitality accommodation license” or “license” – A license issued by the City to a level I hospitality accommodation, a level II hospitality accommodation, or a level III hospitality accommodation. F. “Level I hospitality accommodation” – Any hospitality accommodation whose annual calls for service are less than .20 calls per lodging unit. G. “Level II hospitality accommodation” – Any hospitality accommodation whose annual calls for service are at least .20 calls per lodging unit, but less than .40 calls per lodging unit. H. “Level III hospitality accommodation” – Any hospitality accommodation whose annual calls for service are at least .40 calls per lodging unit or greater. I. “Lodging unit” – One self-contained unit within a hospitality accommodation designated by number, letter, or some other method of identification that is designed or used for overnight accommodations. A lodging unit shall not include areas or rooms not utilized for overnight accommodations such as banquet rooms, meeting rooms, business centers, pool areas, and workout rooms. J. “Part 1 crime” – Any crime identified in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program as a Part 1 crime, but which does not constitute a “violent crime” as defined in this Section. Part 1 crimes include, but are not necessarily limited to, theft, auto theft, burglary, or arson (first, second, or third degree). K. “Police department” – The City of Brooklyn Center Police Department. L. “Property safety inspection” – An annual inspection of level II and level III hospitality accommodations conducted by the City based on a hospitality accommodation inspection checklist developed by the City and adopted by the City Council. 3 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 M. “Violent crime” – Is any homicide (any degree), robbery, criminal sexual c onduct (first, second, or third degree), or assault (first, second, or third degree). Section 23-2403. RESTRICTIONS ON ISSUING LICENSES. A hospitality accommodation license shall not be issued or renewed if any of the following circumstances exist: A. The applicant submits an incomplete license application or fails to submit the required application fee; B. The applicant is untruthful in any of the information provided to the City as part of its request for a license; C. The hospitality accommodation is not in compliance with the requirements associated with the particular license level applicable to the hospitality accommodation; D. The applicant has failed to correct any violations noted in a correction order issued as a result of safety inspection required under Section 23-2412; or E. The hospitality accommodation property is not in compliance with any applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance. Section 23-2404. LICENSING PROCESS AND RENEWAL. The level of a hospitality accommodation license shall be determined and the licensed shall be issued in accordance with this Section. A. A new hospitality accommodation shall obtain a hospitality accommodation license from the City prior to opening for business. A new hospitality accommodation that had not previously operated within the City shall initially qualify for a level I hospitality accommodation license. The City may charge a reduced license fee for a new hospitality accommodation license based on the number of months remaining in the particular licensing period. B. The annual renewal of a hospitality accommodation license shall be in accordance with the following timelines: 1. By February 1st the City shall notify each existing hospitality accommodation in writing of its annual calls for service for the previous year and the level of hospitality accommodation license for which it must apply; 2. By April 1st each hospitality accommodation shall submit to the City a complete application for the appropriate level of license; 4 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 3. By May 1st each hospitality accommodation must obtain the required level of hospitality accommodation license from the City; and 4. By June 1st each hospitality accommodation shall be in full compliance with any conditions placed on the license by the City Council, unless a different compliance date is indicated in the license or a provisional license is issued because of change in licensing levels. C. The City Council shall issue a hospitality accommodation license upon submission of a complete application, payment of applicable fees, compliance with the applicable special requirements, compliance with any correction orders, and proper licensing with all applicable government agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Health. D. If a hospitality accommodation is required, based on its annual calls for service, to transition to a stricter licensing level, the City Council may issue a provisional license to allow additional time for the hospitality accommodation to come into compliance with the additional special requirements applicable to the new level. The hospitality accommodation is required to come into full compliance with the requirements applicable to the new license level and any additional conditions placed on the license by the City Council by the date indicated in the provisional license. The City shall conduct an inspection and if it determines the hospitality accommodation has complied, the license automatically becomes a regular license for the particular license level without further action by the City. If the hospitality accommodation is not in compliance by the date indicated, the provisional license shall terminate unless the City Council acts to extend it. Any such extension approved by the City Council shall be subject to any additional conditions the City Council may place on the license. E. The following scale shall be used to calculate the number of points assigned to a hospitality accommodation for the calls of service to determine the level of license the hospitality accommodation is required to obtain. Type of Call for Service Points Violent crime 5 Points Part 1 crime 3 Points Any other call for service 2 Points If an employee of the hospitality accommodation originated the call for service, the number of points assigned to the particular call for service shall be reduced by one point. F. To determine the type of hospitality accommodation licenses required, the City shall divide the annual calls for service at a hospitality accommodation, calculated using the point system set out in paragraph E of this Section, by the total number of lodging units in the hospitality accommodation. 5 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 G. A hospitality accommodation may be subject to a property safety inspection as provided in Section 23-2412 and any such hospitality accommodation shall comply with any correction orders issued as a result of the inspection. H. Failure of a hospitality accommodation to comply with the requirements applicable to the license level, any additional conditions issued by the City Council, or a correction order shall constitute sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, or nonrenewal of the hospitality accommodation license. Section 23-2405. LICENSE FEE. The fee for a hospitality accommodation license shall be as set forth by City Council resolution. The City Council may establish a separate fee for each licensing level. Section 23-2406. LICENSE PERIOD. All hospitality accommodation licenses shall expire on April 30 each year and must be renewed in accordance with Section 23-2404. Section 23-2407. TRANSFER OF LICENSES. A hospitality accommodation license may be transferred to a new owner of a hospitality accommodation continuing to operate on the same hospitality accommodation property for which the license was issued. The transfer shall not affect the current license level and the calls for service that occurred prior to the transfer shall be used in calculating the license level at renewal. Written notice of the transfer shall be provided to the City within ten business days after the transfer. The notice shall include the name and address of the person, firm, or corporation taking ownership or control of the hospitality accommodation. A hospitality accommodation license shall not be transferred or relocated to a hospitality accommodation located on a different site. Section 23-2408. LEVEL I HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATION. A level I hospitality accommodation is required to meet the special requirements in this Section, which constitute the minimum performance standards for all hospitality accommodations. A. Have clear check-in policies that, at a minimum, require all guests reserving or renting a room to use a credit card to guarantee the reservation or rental. B. Provide and keep a register for the registration of all guests, and every guest must be registered. Upon the arrival of each guest, the operator of the hospitality accommodation must require the guest to provide the name and home address of the guest and every person with the guest as a member of the party, and if the guest is traveling by motor vehicle, the make of the vehicle and license plate number, including the name of the state or country issuing the license plate. The method of payment must be noted as part of the registration information. The registration information must be recorded in the guest register and kept in an accurate and orderly manner. The guest register must be retained for one year and made available for inspection by the City upon reasonable request. 6 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 C. Work cooperatively with the City to provide training no less than annually to all staff members directly involved in registering guests and housekeeping staff. D. Provide the City the name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer of the ownership group of the hospitality accommodation. E. Provide the City the name, e-mail address, and telephone number of all managers and other responsible employees of the hospitality accommodation. F. Require a manager or other responsible employee to be on premises of the hospitality accommodation property at all times. G. Inspect rooms of guests who refuse housekeeping service for three consecutive days or who behave suspiciously in a manner staff reasonably suspect, based on training and experience, may be engaged in unlawful activity. Section 23-2409. LEVEL II HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATION. A level II hospitality accommodation is required to meet the special requirements required of a level I hospitality accommodation and the additional special requirements in this Section, which are designed to deter crime, in order to be eligible for a hospitality accommodation license, and shall comply with any conditions the City Council may impose on the license. A. Submit a management plan to the City detailing steps the hospitality accommodation intends to take to reduce criminal activity. B. Consult with the police department to obtain such inspection services and advice regarding crime prevention as may be needed to address the types and calls for service made to the hospitality accommodation property. C. Consult with the police department to keep apprised of police activity occurring on the hospitality accommodation property. D. Install and operate a surveillance camera, with a recorder, in the lobby at all times. E. Consult with the police department to undergo a “crime prevention through environmental design” (CPTED) inspection and incorporate the findings into the hospitality accommodation property. F. Issue parking passes to all vehicles allowed to park on the hospitality accommodation property, each pass marked with an issued date and expiration date. G. Submit to semi-annual audits by the City to verify compliance with the requirements of this Section. 7 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 Section 23-2410. LEVEL III HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS. A level III hospitality accommodation is required to meet the special requirements of a level II hospitality accommodation, and including those applicable to a level I hospitality accommodation, and the additional special requirements in this Section, which are designed to deter crime, to be eligible for a hospitality accommodation license, and shall comply with any conditions the City Council may impose on the license. A. Conduct background checks on all owners, managers, and employees of the hospitality accommodation in accordance with Section 23-2411. B. Enforce the following guest rules: 1. Lodging units cannot be rented for less than a six-hour period; 2. Prohibit guests from producing loud noises that unreasonably disturb the tranquility of the other guests or those adjacent to the hospitality accommodation property; and 3. Alcohol may not be consumed in common areas except for designated banquet or reception rooms or areas. C. Remove all graffiti and repair all vandalism within seven days of occurrence. D. Install lighting in all common areas with minimum maintained lighting of 1.5 foot-candles at ground level. E. Install and continually operate video monitoring equipment in all parking lots on the hospitality accommodation property that are monitored and recorded at the front desk at all times. F. Have a licensed, armed, and uniformed security guard on the premises every day from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. Section 23-2411. BACKGROUND CHECKS. A. A hospitality accommodation required to conduct background checks on its owners, managers, and employees, such background checks must comply with and include the following: 1. A Minnesota statewide criminal history check covering at least the last three years, which must be conducted by a company providing criminal history check services utilizing the most recent update of the Minnesota criminal history files; 8 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 2. A statewide criminal history check from the person’s previous states of residence covering the last three years if the person has not resided in Minnesota for at least the three years preceding the history check; and 3. A criminal history check conducted in all seven counties in the Twin Cities metropolitan area (the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington) covering at least the last three years, including all misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, and felony convictions. B. The hospitality accommodation shall retain the criminal history check information for the duration of the person’s employment, but in no case less than two years, and shall make the information available for inspection upon request by the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee. Section 23-2412. PROPERTY SAFETY INSPECTION. The City shall conduct property safety inspections in accordance with the provisions of this Section. A. The City shall annually conduct a property safety inspection of all level II and level III hospitality accommodations for the purpose of enforcing the property maintenance code and the standards in this Section. The property safety inspection is required prior to the issuance of a level II or level III hospitality accommodation licenses. The City may at all reasonable times enter and inspect all lodging units, common areas, and operational areas of the hospitality accommodation. Except when otherwise authorized by law or in an emergency, the City shall not inspect an occupied lodging unit without the consent of the occupant. B. Property safety inspections shall include the following: 1. At least 15% of all lodging units in the hospitality accommodation shall be inspected. The City shall determine which lodging units to inspect and shall rotate the lodging units inspected to ensure all lodging units will be inspected periodically; 2. All common areas and operational areas of a hospitality accommodation shall be inspected as part of each property safety inspection; and 3. The inspection shall be based on a hospitality accommodation inspection checklist and the City shall inspect each item on the list during each inspection. C. Any violations found during the property safety inspection shall be corrected in the timeframe established in the correction order issued by the City. The City shall conduct a reinspection of the hospitality accommodation to confirm 9 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 compliance with the correction order. Failure to correct any of the violations noted in a correction order within the established timeframe may result in the suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of the hospitality accommodation license as provided in Section 23-2413. Section 23-2413. REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF LICENSE. A hospitality accommodation license may be revoked, suspended, or not renewed by the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, in accordance with this Section. A. The City Council may revoke, suspend, or not renew a hospitality accommodation license upon any of the following grounds: 1. A false statement, misrepresentation, or fraudulent statement on any application or other information or report required by these Sections 23- 2400 through 23-2415; 2. Failure to pay the application fee, fine, penalty, reinstatement fee, special assessment, real estate taxes, or other financial claim due to the City under this Code; 3. Failure to comply with any of the special requirements applicable to the level of license held by the hospitality accommodation; 4. Failure to comply with any of the conditions placed on the license by the City Council; 5. Failure to comply with any part of a correction order resulting from a property safety inspection within the timeframe indicated in the order; 6. Failure to continuously comply with any zoning, health, building, nuisance, or other Code requirements; 7. Failure to obtain or maintain any licenses required for the hospitality accommodation; or 8. Failure to comply with any other applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance. B. A decision to revoke, suspend, or not renew a hospitality accommodation license shall be preceded by written notice to the applicant or licensee of the alleged grounds therefor and the applicant or licensee will be given an opportunity to request a hearing before the City Council before final action is taken to revoke, suspend, or not renew the license. An applicant or licensee waives its right to a hearing if it fails to submit a written request for a hearing to the City within ten days of the issuance of the written notice. If a timely request for a hearing i s received, the City Council shall conduct a hearing at the next regularly scheduled 10 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 City Council meeting and provide the applicant or licensee an opportunity to be heard. C. The written decision to revoke, suspend, or not renew a hospitality accommodation license shall identify the specific grounds for the decision. Upon issuance of the written decision, no lodging unit within the hospitality accommodation may be offered or used for any period of time by guests until a new hospitality accommodation licenses is issued in accordance with Section 23- 2414. Section 23-2414. REAPPLICATION AFTER LICENSE ACTION. Reapplication for a hospitality accommodation license after the City Council has revoked, suspended, or not renewed a license shall be in accordance with this Section. A. A hospitality accommodation license may be suspended for up to ninety (90) days and may, after the period of suspension, be reinstated subject to compliance with these Sections 23-2400 through 23-2415 and any conditions imposed by the City Council at the time of suspension. B. A hospitality accommodation license revoked or not renewed by the City Council will not be reinstated or issued until the owner has applied for and secured a new hospitality accommodation license and complied with all conditions imposed at the time of revocation or nonrenewal. The City Council may impose a period following the revocation or nonrenewal of the owner’s previous license during which a new hospitality accommodation license may not be submitted. A decision not to renew a hospitality accommodation license may take the form of a suspension or revocation. C. An application for a new hospitality accommodation license following the revocation, suspension, or nonrenewal of the license must be accompanied by a reinstatement fee, as specified by City Council resolution, in addition to all other application and related fees. D. The conditions of approval of any subsequent application for a license to operate a hospitality accommodation on the same property following a period of revocation or denial of renewal of a hospitality accommodation license shall be based upon the hospitality accommodation property's history of annual calls for service prior to the revocation or non-renewal. E. No subsequent application for a hospitality accommodation license on the same property following a period of revocation or nonrenewal shall be approved unless the applicant presents a corrective action plan that is approved by the City to help ensure the conditions and causes of the prior revocation or nonrenewal are appropriately addressed. Implementation of, and compliance with, the corrective action plan shall be a condition of the license. 11 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 Section 23-2415. VIOLATIONS. A. Any person, firm, or corporation who violates any provision of these Sections 23- 2400 through 23-2415 is, upon conviction, guilty of a misdemeanor. The penalty that may be imposed for a misdemeanor is a sentence of not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. Each day upon which a violation of these Sections 23-2400 through 23-2415 occurs constitutes a separate offense. B. In lieu of issuing a criminal citation, the City may issue an administrative citation and impose a civil penalty on any person, firm, or corporation who violates any provision of these Sections 23-2400 through 23-2415. C. Any person required to register at a hospitality accommodation who intentionally presents false identification, provides a false or assumed name, or otherwise provides false guest register information is guilty of a misdemeanor. D. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as a waiver of any applicable state license requirements or from compliance with all applicable civil and criminal laws. Article II. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 23, Section 23-006.05 is hereby amended as follows: Section 23-006.05. PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES REQUIRED. No license shall be granted or renewed for tobacco related products; bowling alleys; public dancing; filling stations; pawnbrokers; secondhand goods dealers; motor vehicle dealerships; saunas and sauna baths; massage parlors; rap parlors, conversation parlors, adult encounter groups, adult sensitivity groups, escort services, model services, dancing services, or hostess services; hospitality accommodations; or amusement devices for operation on any property on which taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the state, county, school district, or city are due, delinquent, or unpaid. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, Section 278.01 through 278.03, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due. Article III. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this ___ day of __________, 2019. _______________________________ Mayor 12 539005v7 TJG BR291-4 ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date City of Brooklyn Center Hospitality Accommodation Inspection Checklist Business Name/Address __________________________________________ Inspection Date ____________ Manager/Supervisor Name _______________________ No. of Rooms Inspected ___________ Interior Requirements __ 1. Floors: hallways, stairways, guest rooms, bathrooms and store rooms are clean, sanitary, smooth, in good repair, and approved coverage. __ 2. Walls and ceilings: hallways, stairways, guest rooms, bathrooms and store rooms are cleaned, painted, and in good repair. __ 3. Studs, joists, rafters are not exposed except when suitable. Finished and kept clean. __ 4. Windows are properly screened. __ 5. All rooms and hallways used by patrons are well lit. __ 6. Rooms are ventilated outside. __ 7. Tempered, make-up air during winter. __ 8. All rooms meet minimum heat requirements Bathroom Requirements __ 9. Toilet is in good repair. __ 10. Shower/Tub is in good repair. __ 11. Approved source of water and adequate supply under pressure. __ 12. Hot water does not exceed 130 degrees Fahrenheit. Plumbing and Swimming __ 13. RPZ inspection report is made available. __14. Water Softener clean and maintained. __15. Water heaters are in good repair. __ 16. Public pools and facilities inspection report made available. Units (15% of all reviewed) __ 17. Door locks (dead bolt). __ 18. Window security on all windows. __ 19. Number clearly identified at each unit. __ 20. Eye views in each door. __ 21. Striker plate and screws in place. __ 22. Smoke and CO Alarms in operable condition. Common Areas __ 23. Surveillance in working order (if required or provided by the property owner). __ 24. No Trespass signs at all entrances and/or placed in locations that can be clearly seen by all guests and visitors. __ 25. Proper lighting. __ 26. Elevator inspection report is available onsite __27. Fire inspection report is available onsite __28. Building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and other building permits are closed out __29. Utility rooms are clear of storage and mechanical and electrical equipment is accessible Property Exterior __ 30. Ground cover plants do not exceed three feet in height. __ 31. Plants under windows are maintained at a height that is below the windowsill. __ 32. Trees are trimmed so the lower branches are at least five feet off the ground. __ 33. Landscaping does not interfere with lighting distribution. __ 34. Surveillance in working order __35. Ground cover such as mulch and rock is adequate to provide cover. __ 36. Property/facility free of litter and rubbish. __ 37. Garbage receptacles are clean and in good repair. __38. Trash enclosures are properly screened and in good repair. __ 39. Exterior lighting is operable and functional: __ Building exterior. __ Trash enclosures. __ Entry and exit points. __ Parking lots. The above must be corrected as indicated. Failure to comply may result in further action. Date: _______________________________ Received By. ______________________ Community Development 763-569-3330 - Phone 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 763-569-3360 - Fax www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Comments/Correction Orders ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE 2018-17 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted the above referenced ordinance concerning Hospitality Accommodations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing maps or charts; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent of Ordinance 2018-17. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: the following summary of Ordinance 2018-17 shall be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance. SUMMARY PUBLICATION Ordinance 2018-17 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23, Sections 23-2400 through 23-2415 on January 14, 2019. The amended ordinance elements include: • Minimum standards for hospitality accommodations • Operating a hospitality accommodations have responsibility to ensure their guests and visitors have safe and secure accommodations January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Development Director F R O M:Jesse Anders on, Deputy Direc tor of C ommunity Development S UBJ EC T:An O rdinance Amending C hapter 12 of the C ity C ode of O rdinanc es R egarding Tenant P rotections - S ec ond R eading and P ublic Hearing Requested Council Action: - M otion to open public hearing, take public comment, and close public hearing - M otion to a p p rove the secon d readin g and adop t a n ord inance a men d ing C h a p ter 12 of th e C ity C ode of O rdinances reg a rd ing ten a n t p rotections a n d approve a resolu tion amendin g the fee schedule relating to Administrative P enalties - M otion to approve a resolution approving the S ummary P ublication of the adopted ordinance Background: At a work session o n April 9, 2018, the C ity C ounc il reviewed numero us polic ies relating to affordable hous ing. T he polic ies were presented to the C ounc il and staff at an earlier C o unc il meeting b y affordable hous ing advo cates who have been working with multip le cities aro und the regio n on s imilar efforts . T hese policies have b een des igned to addres s s p ecific p ro b lems related to the c reation o f new affordable units, the pres ervation of exis ting affordable housing, and the protec tion of tenant's rights . Based on that disc ussion, C ounc il direc ted s taff to monitor the landlord lawsuit agains t the C ity of Minneapolis related to the ac c eptanc e o f S ec tion 8 Vouchers . S inc e that meeting, the o rd inance was struc k d o wn, whic h would have p ro hibited landlords fro m b anning S ec tion 8 Voucher ho ld ers fro m s ub mitting a rental applic ation. Minneapolis is ap p ealing the d ecision. S taff will c o ntinue to monitor the p ro c es s and will bring the item b ack to C ouncil s hould a higher court make a different determination. At the wo rk s es s io n, S taff also p res ented info rmation on a Tenant P rotectio n O rdinanc e, which had rec ently been drafted b y the C ity of S t. Louis P ark. T he C ity C o uncil direc ted s taff to proc eed with res earc hing and drafting a Tenant P rotec tion O rdinance for further c onsideration by C ouncil. At the No vember 13, 2018, C ity C o uncil work s es s io n staff pres ented additio nal info rmation about the Tenant P rotec tion O rdinanc e, inc luding a d raft o f an o rd inance which was mo d eled after similar ordinanc es whic h had s ine b een ad o p ted b y the c ities of S t. Louis P ark, R ic hfield , and Blo o mington. At that meeting s taff were directed to b ring the Tenant P ro tec tion O rdinanc e to the Hous ing C ommission fo r review and recommendation. T he Hous ing C ommission reviewed the ordinanc e at their No vember 20, 2018, meeting. T he Housing C ommis s ion unanimo us ly passed a mo tion to rec o mmend ap p ro val of the Tenant P rotec tio n O rdinanc e. T he Housing C o mmis s io n did make the following recommend ed changes which have been reflected in the updated ordinance. 1. Increase the inc o me requirement to 80% of the area med ian inc o me (AMI) and remo ve the minimum 20% of units requirement. T herefore, requiring protec tion for any unit that qualifies based on inc ome. 2. S ection 12-912D.2.a.8. C hange language to req uire no tic e to tenant if mo d ificatio ns to leas e will b e made within 30 d ays after the 90-day tenant p ro tec tion period ends. T he p revious language required notification only if the landlord intended to make mo d ificatio ns to the leas e the d ay fo llo wing the end of the 90-day tenant protec tion period. 3. S ection 36a. C larific ation on ho w many months the tenant protectio n p erio d wo uld b e when 3 months totals 89 days. 4. 12-912D.2.D. Ad just wo rd ing for d elivering the no tic e to the C ity. F o r examp le, if the landlord hand delivers the notic e to tenants, they c an s till provide the notic e to the C ity by mail. O n Dec emb er 10, 2018 the C ity C ounc il ap p ro ved the 1s t reading o f the o rd inance and called for a public hearing on January 14, 2018. Affordable H ousing D efinition T he Metro p o litan C ounc il annually sets affo rd ab ility limits b as ed on area median inc o me (AMI). R ents are cons idered affordable when they c o s t 30 perc ent o r les s of an individ ual or family's inc o me. T he Metropolitan C ouncil defines affordable rents as tho s e that wo uld b e affordable to an individ ual o r family earning 80 percent AMI or les s . 2018 Metropolitan C o uncil Affordability Limits # of Bedrooms 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI Effic ienc y $474 $791 $949 $1,265 1-Bedroom $508 $848 $1,017 $1,356 2-Bedroom $610 $1,017 $1,220 $1,627 3-Bedroom $705 $1,175 $1,410 $1,880 4-Bedroom $786 $1,311 $1,573 $2,097 T he o riginal draft o f the Tenant P rotec tion O rdinanc e would have applied to multi-family properties that had at leas t 20 perc ent of the units affordable at the 60 p ercent AMI limit. T he Ho us ing C o mmis s io n rec ommended that thes e p ercentages be adjus ted s o that the O rd inance would ap p ly to multi-family properties with any number of units that were affordable up to the 80 perc ent AMI limit. T he effect o f this change is that, b ecaus e the average rents in Brooklyn C enter are affo rd ab le at the 50 percent AMI limit, this O rd inanc e will likely ap p ly to all multi-family rental p ro p erties in the C ity. F urther, the rent ceiling is high enough that it is unlikely landlords wo uld be able to rais e rents enough to avo id having to c omply with the O rdinance. Tenant P rotection O rdinance O verview As the value of rental property has inc reas ed througho ut the Twin C ities R egio n, s o has investment interes t. As properties c hange hand s it is c o mmo n fo r new owners to make c ap ital imp ro vements and increase rents , change s c reening c riteria, o r alter other as pec ts of the leas e agreement which fo rce exis ting tenants out of the building. T he p urpose o f the Tenant P ro tec tion O rd inanc e is to es s entially freeze the terms of the exis ting lease for a 90 day period of time, allowing tenants time to reloc ate s hould they need to. T he ordinanc e req uires a new o wner o f a property with three or more units , and with rents whic h are cons idered affordable, to pay reloc ation b enefits to tenants if the new owner increases rent, re-sc reens exis ting res idents resulting in tenants relocating from the property, imp lements non-renewals witho ut c ause within 3 months after the p urc has e, o r materially c hanges the terms o f the lease resulting in the tenant relo cating fro m the property. T he o rd inance would require new buyers to notify tenants within 30 d ays if sub s tantive c hanges to the lease are forthc oming, giving tenants time to relocate if nec es s ary. T he ordinance defines "Cause" as the renter violating a provision of the City's rental housing provisions, nonpayment of rent, malicious destruction of property, or disturbing the peace. T his means that a new landlord would not be able to non-renew a lease except for these reasons during the tenant protection period. A landlord would still be able to evict a tenant through the typical legal process. T he ordinanc e lays out a spec ific notific atio n proc es s that includ es b o th notificatio n o f the tenants and the C ity when new ownership of the property occ urs. E nforcement O ne as p ec t of the ordinanc e that s taff continues to have c o nc erns about relates to the enforc ement of it in s ituations where a tenant feels they are o wed reloc ation b enefits , but the land lo rd feels they do no t. No ne of the other cities that have adopted s imilar ordinances have dealt with this issue directly within the ordinanc e. W hile the C ity c an req uire doc umentatio n fro m the land lo rd that they have met the no tific ation requirements to the tenants , if a d is p ute arises, the C ity is not in a positio n to mediate that d is p ute. In that s ituatio n the remed y fo r a tenant who feels that the ordinanc e has been vio lated would be through the courts. Taking a land lo rd to court can be a c os tly and onerous process that tenants may not choos e to purs ue. T he C ity Atto rney has provid ed informatio n relating to what actio ns a tenant may take in this s ituation. T here is no clear legal path on this type of tenant ac tion bec ause it would be new to the court s ystem. New owners in all likelihood will s imply wait the 90 days to make the alterations to any leas e terms that they intend to make and reloc ation b enefits will never need to b e paid, s o the is s ue o f enforc ement will likely rarely come up. S takeholder R eview and Input S taff have provid ed the draft o rd inanc e to Homeline for review. T hey apprec iate that Bro o klyn C enter has implemented the changes Ho meline recommended. However, they s ugges ted that the C ity als o c onsider adding a 60-day advanc e notice o f p ro p o s ed sale. Homeline s uggests "that provision is very important because it actu a lly gives tenants very critical in formation about th e stability of their h ousing. W h ile it could end u p b eing d ifficu lt to enforce, more b roadly we believe it is a clea r d emonstra tion of th e in terest th e city has in supporting a significant portion of the population." S taff reviewed the advanc e notice of s ale polic y with the C o uncil at the April wo rk s es s ion and expressed concerns for the polic y at that time. S taff's p rimary c o nc ern is the management o f the informatio n related to the notice of s ale, how it is maintained , who it is d is tributed to, and the C ity's liab ility to d o so. In additio n, the advanced notic e of sale polic y runs the ris k of interfering with the s ale of property, and landlords have expressed stro ng concern o ver its unintend ed cons eq uences of deterring s ales and und uly inc reas ing the c os t of ac quisitions. In respons e to the Tenant P rotec tio n O rd inance, s taff reached out to s everal landlords in the c ommunity to as k them to p ro vide input on the p ro p o s ed o rd inanc e. G enerally, those talked to expressed an overall c onc ern about the ordinance and its pos s ible unintended c onsequenc es , but ac knowledged that it was likely manageable. C onc erns rais ed included: Landlords who c an will inc reas e rents to push their properties outs ide the purview of the ordinance. T he ordinanc e will increase acquis ition costs by ad d ing ad d itional carrying c o s ts on the firs t 90 days which may dissuade buyers. T he ordinanc e adds costs for b uyers to c o mp lete their d ue d iligence o n a property and, bec aus e the ordinance is new, adds unc ertainty with the compliance procedures . Landlords noted that the ho us ing market is cyclic al and , tho ugh there is an affo rd ab le hous ing issue right now, that the vac anc y rate wo uld eventually s tabilize bac k up s o that dis plac ement and affordability would not always be s uc h a large c onc ern. Landlords commented that Bro o klyn C enter's ho us ing market was unique in that, while this ordinance would affect mo s t rental properties b ecaus e o f the large amount o f affo rd ab le rental units in the C ity, dis placement was not as large o f an issue here as it is in c ommunities where there are very few affordable rental units , and s o the ordinance may not be as necessary. N ext S teps If the C ounc il approves the s econd reading of the ordinance it will go into effec t on F ebruary 13, 2019. Attached to this report is the propos ed Tenant P rotec tion O rdinance, whic h was drafted by the C ity Attorney. Als o attac hed is the November 20, 2018 Hous ing C ommission pac ket whic h inc ludes previous memos to the C ity C ounc il on the topic , as well as background information on hous ing in Brooklyn C enter. Budget Issues: T here will be s taff time relating to the enfo rcement o f the o rd inance. However, it is no t c urrently antic ipated that the additional workload will result in additional staff. S trategic Priorities and Values: R es ident Ec onomic S tability 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. 2018-18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING TENANT PROTECTIONS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN: Article I. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-201 is amended as follows: 2a. Affordable Housing Building – a multifamily rental dwelling, as defined in Section 12- 201(26), having three or more dwelling units and where any of the units rent for an amount that is affordable to households at or below 80% of area median income, as median income is most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minnesota-Wisconsin Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms. 2b. Affordable Housing Unit – a rental unit in an affordable housing building that rents for an amount that is affordable to households at or below 80% of area median income, as median income is most recently determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minnesota-Wisconsin Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for household size and number of bedrooms. 3c. Cause – the tenant or a member of the tenant’s household violates a provision of the City’s rental housing provisions including, but not limited to, Section 12-915 Crime Free/Drug Free Housing Lease Addendum, or materially violates a term of the lease related to one or more of the following: a. Nonpayment of rent; b. Malicious destruction of the affordable housing unit or the affordable housing building; c. Disturbance of the peace verified by the police department; or d. A violation of any of the covenants in Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.171. 13a. Lease – an oral or written agreement creating a tenancy in real property. 13b. Material Change – a change in the terms of a lease, either through an amendment of an existing lease or the adoption of a new lease, that significantly limits or restricts the tenants use and enjoyment of an affordable housing unit or the affordable housing building. 25a. Relocation Assistance – a payment to the tenant of an affordable housing unit in the amount equal to three months of the current monthly lease rent. 2 36a. Tenant Protection Period – the period that commences on the date when a written notice of the transfer of ownership is sent to each affordable housing unit tenant pursuant to Section 12- 912D(2) and ends on the last day of the third full calendar month following the date on which the notice was sent. In no case shall the tenant protection period be less than 90 days. 36b. Transfer of Ownership – any transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building by an owner to another person, agent, firm, or corporation that becomes the new owner. Article II. Brooklyn Center City Code is amended by adding a new Section 12-912D regarding transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building as follows: Section 12-912D. TENANT PROTECTIONS. 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide housing stability and protection to tenants in affordable rental housing units who are facing displacement when there is a transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building. This Section requires, upon such a transfer, notice to the tenants and the City and the payment of tenant relocation assistance when affordable housing is converted and tenants are required, through direct or indirect means, to move without adequate time to find new housing. This Section is to be interpreted broadly to ensure the tenants of affordable housing units are afforded the protections intended by this Section. 2. Transfer of Ownership. a. Notice. Within 30 days after the transfer of ownership of an affordable housing building, the new owner shall give written notice to each affordable housing unit tenant of the building that the propert y is under new ownership. The notice must, at a minimum, include the following information: (1) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the new owner; (2) The following statement: Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-912D provides for a three-month tenant protection period for affordable housing unit tenants after an affordable housing building is transferred to a new owner. Under Section 12-912D, affordable housing unit tenants are entitled to relocation assistance from the new owner if, during the tenant protection period, the new owner: (i) Without cause, terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease; (ii) Raises the rent and the tenant submits a written notice of termination of their lease; (iii) Requires existing affordable housing unit tenants to comply with new residency screening criteria and the owner or tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease; or 3 (iv) Imposes, without the tenant’s consent, a material change in the terms of the lease and the owner or tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease. (3) Whether there will be any rent increase during the tenant protection period, the amount of the rent increase, and the date the rent increase will take effect; (4) Whether the new owner will require existing affordable housing unit tenants to comply with new residency screening criteria during the tenant protection period and, if so, a copy of the new screening criteria; (5) Whether the new owner will, without the tenant’s consent, impose a material change in the terms of the lease during the tenant protection period and, if so, the language of the material change and an explanation of its effect; (6) Whether the new owner will, without cause, terminate or not renew the tenant’s lease during the tenant protection period, and if so, the date the lease will terminate and the amount of relocation assistance that will be provided; (7) The date the tenant protection period will expire; and (8) Whether the new owner, within 30 days following the tenant protection period, intends to: increase rent; require existing affordable housing unit tenants to comply with new residency screening criteria; impose a material change in the terms of the lease; or, without cause, terminate or not renew affordable housing unit leases. b. Language Requirement. Each notice required by this Section shall contain an advisory that reads as follows: “This is important information about your housing. If you do not understand it, have someone translate it for you now, or request a translation from your landlord.” This advisory must be stated in the notice in the following languages: English, Spanish, Somali, and Hmong. Upon written request by a tenant that identifies the tenant’s native language, the owner must provide a written translation of the notice in that language. c. Affidavit. The new owner shall prepare and execute an affidavit of having provided the notice required by this Section that, at a minimum, identifies each tenant to which the notice was provided, the date on which it was provided, and the method of delivery. A copy of the notice provided shall be attached to the affidavit. d. Copy of Notices to City. The new owner shall provide a copy of the notices and of the affidavit required by this Section to the City within three days of having provided the notice to the tenants. e. Copy of Rent Roll to City. If the new owner claims the building or the unit does not meet the definition of an affordable housing building or an affordable housing unit, the 4 owner shall, upon request, provide the City a copy of the rent roll, including the amount of lease rents paid by tenants. 3. Relocation Assistance. a. When Required. A new owner of an affordable housing building must pay relocation assistance to affordable housing unit tenants if any of the following occur during the tenant protection period: (1) The new owner, without cause, terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease; (2) The new owner raises the rent and the tenant submits a written notice of termination of their lease; (3) The new owner requires existing tenants to comply with new residency screening criteria and the owner or tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease; or (4) The new owner imposes, without the tenant’s consent, a material change in the terms of the lease and the owner or tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease. b. When Paid. The new owner shall, when required, pay relocation assistance to the tenant of an affordable housing unit within 30 days after receiving tenant’s written notice of termination of the lease or within 30 days after the owner notifies the tenant that the lease will be terminated or not renewed. c. Affidavit. The new owner shall prepare and execute an affidavit that, at a minimum, indicates the date of the notice of termination, identifies each tenant to which relocation assistance was paid, the amount paid, the check number for each payment, the payment date, and the address used to mail the payment. 4. Notice of Violation. A tenant of an affordable housing unit who believes the new owner of the affordable housing building has not provided the tenant the protections required under this Section 12-912D may submit a notice of violation to the City. The purpose of the notice is to inform the City of an alleged violation of this Section to assist the City in determining whether to impose an administrative penalty provided for in this Section, not issue a rental license to the new owner as provided in Section 12-901(8), or to take action on the rental license as provided in Section 12-910. The City is not required to take any particular action in response to a notice of violation and any enforcement action it does take shall be on behalf of the City, not the tenant. Filing a notice of violation does not prohibit the tenant from pursuing any remedy available to the tenant under law. 5. Penalties. a. Administrative Penalty. Failure to provide the notice of transfer or to pay relocation assistance when required under this Section is an administrative offense for which a 5 citation may be issued and a civil penalty imposed as provided in Chapter 18 of this Code. b. Separate Offenses. A violation of this Section as to each dwelling unit shall constitute a separate offense. Article III. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-901(8) regarding rental licensing requirements is hereby amended as follows: 8. License Process and Renewal. a. Renewals. License renewals shall be filed at least 90 days prior to the license expiration date. Within two weeks of receipt of a complete application and of the license fee required by Section 12-902, the Compliance Official shall schedule an inspection. b. Inspection. No application for an initial license shall be submitted to the City Council until the Compliance Official has determined that all life, health safety violations, or discrepancies have been corrected. In cases where a weather deferral for repairs has been granted by the Compliance Official, the license may be brought forward for consideration of granting a license conditioned on completing repairs. c. Transfer of Ownership. The new owner of a rental dwelling is required to obtain a rental permit from the City in order to continue renting the rental dwelling. When ownership of an affordable housing building is transferred, the new owner is required to obtain a new rental license for the property under this Section. The new owner shall include in its application for a new license the affidavit of having provided notice to the tenants and, if required, having paid relocation assistance in accordance with Section 12-912D. The new owner shall not be eligible for a new rental license if it failed to provide the notice or failed to pay, if required, relocation benefits in accordance with Section 12-912D. d. Incomplete Applications or Process. If the license application is incomplete, or the applicant does not meet the requirements of the licensing process within 120 days of the submittal date, the application will be canceled. Article IV. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. 6 Adopted this ___ day of __________, 2019. _______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2019-______ RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY SYSTEM WHEREAS, Chapter 18 of the Brooklyn Center City Code (“Code”) provides for the imposition of administrative penalties and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-79 to establish a fee schedule for the administrative penalty system that went into effect on April 26. 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council is in the process of adopting Ordinance No. 2019-__, which enacts as part of Chapter 12 of the Code certain tenant protections and provides for the imposition of administrative penalties for violating those requirements; and WHEREAS, the fee schedule for the administrative penalties system needs to be updated to incorporate the administrative penalties associated with violating the tenant protection requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the fee schedule for the administrative penalty system enacted by Resolution No. 2010-79 is hereby updated and replaced with the following: 1. All violations of the Code that are punishable as a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor are subject to administrative penalties. 2. The administrative penalty fees are as follows: Administrative Penalty Fee Schedule Level 1 $60 Level 2 $125 Level 3 $300 Level 4 $500 3. The administrative penalty fee amounts are assigned as follows: Violation Type Level Waste container setback violation (Ch 7-102) 1 Watering restriction violation (Ch 4-202) 1 Local Traffic and Parking (Ch 27) 1 Parking surface violation (Ch 12-316) 2 All others city code violations, designated as a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor 2 4. When a person has had previous citation(s) for the same violation within 24 months, the scheduled fine amount shall be doubled for each occurrence. 5. In cases involving continuing violations, the hearing officer may adjust and impose a fee for each day the violation continues, not to exceed $2,000 per violation per day. 6. The maximum fine amount per violation per day may not exceed $2,000. 7. A late payment charge of 10% of the fine amount, with a minimum of $15, is required if not paid within 10 days from the date of the citation. 8. Fees to be paid to a hearing officer: The fee will be $150 as a maximum charge for up to two consecutive hearings. Any additional consecutive hearings would be $75 each. 9. Hearing Request Deposit fee: $20. 10. A special assessment charge of $30 will be added for unpaid fine amounts that are specially assessed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to update the City of Brooklyn Center Fee Schedule to incorporate the administrative penalty system fees as adopted herein. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that administrative penalty system fees adopted herein shall be effective on February 1, 2019. , 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Animal (Ch 01) 2 Failure to register a vacant property (Ch 12-1500) 2 Failure to obtain a permit or license 3 Tenant protection violation (Ch 12-912D) 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE 2018-18 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted the above referenced ordinance concerning Tenant Protection; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing maps or charts; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent of Ordinance 2018-18. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: the following summary of Ordinance 2018-18 shall be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance. SUMMARY PUBLICATION Ordinance 2018-18 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Sections 12-201, 12-901(8), and 12-912D on January 14, 2019. The amended ordinance elements include: • Tenant protection for affordable rental housing • Relocation assistance for tenants January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1/14/2019 1 Tenant Protection Ordinance October 8, 2018 Review City Council Meeting, January 14, 2019 Meg Beekman, Community Development Director Background • April 9, 2018 The City Council reviewed numerous policies relating to affordable housing. • Staff was directed to bring back the Tenant Protection Ordinance for additional consideration. • November 12, 2018 City Council reviewed the draft ordinance • November 18, 2018 the Housing Commission recommended approval with minor revisions. • December 10, 2018 The City Council approved the 1st reading and called for the public hearing to be held on January 14, 2019. 2 1/14/2019 2 Tenant Protection Ordinance Overview • The value of rental property has increased • With new ownership, changes can occur for tenants • Capital improvements • Increase rents • Screening criteria • These changes can displace existing tenants • State Law prohibits cities from enacting rent control 3 Tenant Protection Ordinance • Requires a new owner to pay relocation benefits to tenants, if during the Tenant Protection Period the new owner: •Without cause, terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease; •Raises the rent and the tenant submits a written notice of termination of their lease; •Requires existing tenants to comply with new screening criteria and the owner or  tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease; or •Imposes, without the tenant’s consent, a material change in the terms of the lease  and the owner or tenant terminates or does not renew the tenant’s lease. • Allows tenants time to relocate if necessary • The purpose is to freeze the terms of the existing lease for a minimum of 90 day 4 1/14/2019 3 Tenant Protection Ordinance • This ordinance wouldn’t interfere with the sale of naturally occurring affordable housing. • Requires new buyers to notify tenants within 30 days • Requires new buyers to notify tenants if changes to the lease will occur within 30 days after the Tenant Protection Period • The new buyers have the option to pay relocation assistant 5 Timeline 1. New owner purchases property 2. Within 30 days of purchase, new landlord sends written notice to tenants – Tenant Protection Period begins 3. Tenant Protection Period ends on the last day of the third full calendar month following the day the notice was sent 4. 30 days following Tenant Protection Period, landlord may alter lease and impose screening criteria provided notice was given 5. 31 days following Tenant Protection Period, Ordinance no longer applies 6 1/14/2019 4 Tenant Protection Ordinance • St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Richfield, and Golden Valley have adopted similar ordinances • Minneapolis is in the process of approving a similar ordinance • Bloomington is considering amendments related to enforcement • No enforcement actions to date 7 Ordinance Updates • Integrated into the rental licensing application process • Restricts the type of non-renewals that can occur • Restricts material changes to the terms of the lease • Applies to properties with 3+ units • Applies to units affordable at 80% AMI or less • Defines “cause” for permitted non-renewals or evictions •Nonpayment of rent •Malicious destruction of property •Disturbance of the peace verified by the police department •A violation of any of the covenants in Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.171. 8 1/14/2019 5 Enforcement • Some uncertainty with enforcement • Legal path for tenants is not clear – New Ordinance • Landlord would be unable to obtain license until relocation benefit is paid or notice given • Citation amount for violation of the tenant protection ordinance is $500, plus relocation 9 Stakeholder Review and Input • Home-line appreciated the recommended updates • Recommended considering the notice of sale ordinance as well • Landlords express concerns regarding unintended consequences • Increase rent to exceed income requirement • Increase in acquisition cost due to carrying cost • Increased cost for due diligence • Unique Brooklyn Center Market, most units are affordable unlike other communities • May dissuade investors from purchasing buildings 10 1/14/2019 6 Recommended Action • Motion to open public hearing, take public comment, and close public hearing • Motion to approve the second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding tenant protections and approve a resolution amending the fee schedule relating to Administrative Penalties • Motion to approve a resolution approving the Summary Publication of the adopted ordinance 11 COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:Liquor Lic ense Violation - Jammin Wings Requested Council Action: - M otion to open public hearing - Take public input - M otion to close public hearing Background: T his item was c arried over from the Dec ember 10, 2018 C ity C ounc il meeting. O n O ctober 9, 2018, the Brooklyn C enter P olic e Department c onducted alc ohol compliance checks at all on- s ale liquor lic ense holders within the C ity of Brooklyn C enter. At Jammin Wings, the bartender served the individual that was under the age of 21 even after looking at their I D. T his was Jammin Wings s econd liquor violation in 2018. T he firs t violation was operating an O ptional 2 am liquor licens e with an expired lic ense. In the minutes from the January 22, 2018, C ity C ouncil meeting, the counc il imposed a $1,300 civil penalty, suspending $1,000, contingent upon no further liquor license violations. S ection 11-125 R evocation and S uspens ion: T he C ity C ouncil may s uspend or revoke any liquor licens e or permit and may impos e a penalty not to exceed $2,000 purs uant to Minnesota S tatutes, S ec tion 340A.415, for the violation of any provis ion or c ondition of this C hapter or of any S tate law or rule or federal law regulating the sale of Liquor. T he C ity C ounc il shall revoke a Liquor Lic ense for any willful violation that, under the laws of the S tate, is grounds for mandatory revoc ation, inc luding the lic ensee's failure to maintain the ins urance required by S ection 11-121 of this C hapter in full force and effect. No sus pension after hearing shall exceed 60 days . S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity MEMORANDUM TO: Barb Suciu, City Clerk FROM: Tim Gannon Chief of Police DATE: October 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Alcohol Compliance Check-Failure On 10/9/18 at approximately 7:30 p.m. officers from the Brooklyn Center Police Department conducted alcohol compliance checks at all on-sale liquor license holders within the City of Brooklyn Center. Officers were assisted by a BCPD Explorer who was working for the PD and is under the age of 21. When the Explorer attempted to purchase alcohol at Jammin Wings, 2590 Freeway Blvd, the bartender served the Explorer alcohol even after looking at the presented ID which clearly showed the Explorer to be under the legal age to purchase. That bartender was then arrested and positively identified which is maintained in the official police report (BC18-004300). The arrested will be charged via formal complaint with a charge of Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor (GM). There were no other alcohol compliance failures during this round of compliance checks. 01/22/18 -4- of which are located adjacent to Lilac Drive North. The subject area for vacation was formerly used for a section of roadway that is being removed as part of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 1. This vacated area would be used to mitigate the loss of parking on the Brookdale Covenant Church property due to the installation of a new signal at Highway 100 south ramp and the extension of Lilac Drive North. Mr. Cote described the land exchange agreement and explained the property owner will be required to dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the vacated portion of the right-of-way to maintain access to the existing utilities within the vacated area. He noted this item was first read on December 11, 2017, published in the official newspaper on December 21, 2017, and offered this evening for Public Hearing and adoption of the ordinance. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address this item. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2018-01 Vacating a Portion of Right-of-Way: Lilac Drive North. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. CONSIDERATION OF LIQUOR LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AT JAMMIN WINGS, 2590 FREEWAY BOULEVARD City Clerk Sharon Knutson introduced the item and stated the purpose of this agenda item to consider liquor license enforcement action at Jammin Wings, 2590 Freeway Boulevard. She presented history of this consideration, explaining that on November 27, 2017, Mr. Brown, owner of Jammin Wings, submitted a renewal application and fee for a State and City intoxicating liquor license and Sunday liquor license, as well as the City application for an optional 2 a.m. liquor license. On December 11, 2017, the City Council approved the issuance of these liquor licenses. On or about December 19, 2017, while preparing the licenses for issuance, she checked with the State of Minnesota Department of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division website to make sure the 2 a.m. permit was active and discovered it had expired on August 1, 2017. Ms. Knutson stated she then contacted the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division to confirm and they affirmed it had not been submitted as of that date. Ms. Knutson stated she informed the City Manager and then Mr. Brown that the permit had lapsed so the City could not issue a liquor license until that permit had been approved by the State. Mr. Brown informed her that he had not received that application from the State and was 01/22/18 -5- unaware it was not active at the time. Mr. Brown then took immediate action to renew the 2 a.m. permit with the State, which she confirmed with the State, and then issued that license. Ms. Knutson stated on January 8, 2018, she received an email notification from the State AGED and learned the check submitted by Mr. Brown was NSF for a closed account so, therefore, the permit was not valid. In consulting with the City Manager and City Attorney, it was agreed a violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.504, subdivision 7, had occurred. Ms. Knutson noted the City Attorney has drafted a memorandum, which was provided in the meeting packet, to outline the enforcement action options that can be considered by the City Council following the Public Hearing. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Brown explained that in the past, he got a package from the City to pay for the license and did not realize the State permit for optional 2 a.m. was due on August 1st. However, as the City Clerk stated, his account was closed. He said it was tampered with so the bank closed the account. He paid for the State permit, but the State took longer to go forward with the check and the account was closed by the bank on January 2, 2018. He stated he thought the State’s check had cleared but it did not. Mr. Brown stated he paid the check to the State as well as the bounced check fee. Mayor Willson explained that any time there is a violation, the City has to address it and it does not matter when it occurred, but that a violation did occur. So tonight, the City will hold the public hearing and obtain advice from staff as well as the City Attorney. Mr. Brown stated he would like a 4 a.m. license during the upcoming Super Bowl. Mayor Willson referenced the memorandum that contained the request for the 4 a.m. license, which is a different issue than what is under consideration at this time. Mr. Boganey asked questions of Mr. Brown to determine the dates the checks were written and when the account was closed. He recounted that the check was written on December 19, 2017, the State contacted the City on January 8, 2018, and the account closed on January 2, 2018. He asked if on December 19, 2017, when the check was written to the State there were sufficient funds on that date. Mr. Brown answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist clarified that on Page 1 of his memorandum, last sentence, it should indicate: “This violation does not rise to that level.” He described the range of options before the City Council for a liquor license violation, noting this does not trigger mandatory revocation but ranges from no penalty at all, a civil penalty up to $2,000, and/or suspension of the liquor license 01/22/18 -6- for no greater than 60 days. He noted with each option, there is flexibility including a limited suspension or imposition of a penalty with suspension of a portion conditioned on not having another violation. Mr. Gilchrist stated the civil penalty can be in addition to suspension or revocation. He noted the violation was focused on serving after 1 a.m. without the appropriate permit. Mayor Willson pointed out if the 2 a.m. permit is suspended, then the 4 a.m. permit cannot go forward. He asked about imposing an administration fee to cover staff time and expenses, such as is imposed with rental licenses, as well as a civil penalty so the violation is documented. Mayor Willson stated the City does not want to see any more violations but if one should occur, this will provide documentation to take stronger action. Mr. Gilchrist advised if the City Council is inclined to consider a suspension or revocation, he would recommend directing staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next meeting. Councilmember Graves stated the City has been working with this business on other issues and the City Council has considered its liquor licenses, seating, and other requirements as well. She stated she enjoys going to Jammin Wings and likes that it is open until 2 a.m., noting it is one of the only Black-owned businesses in the City. But that being said, Councilmember Graves wanted to assure the rules are followed so Jammin Wings can stay there. She stated she supports imposing a civil penalty of up to $2,000 and suspending it conditioned on there being no further violations. Mr. Brown pointed out that in the four and a half years he has been in business, there has been only one violation, which not many bars or restaurants can say. Mayor Willson stated the City needs to be consistent with enforcing its ordinances across the board. He offered the option to consider a $1,000 civil penalty plus $300 administrative fee to cover staff time and suspend the civil penalty. He noted this would be similar to a rental ordinance violation where an administration fee is charged. Mr. Boganey stated it would probably need to be a $1,300 civil penalty and suspending $1,000. He indicated the notion of $300 being the amount to account for staff time may not be an unreasonable assessment of cost when considering his time, and the City Attorney’s and City Clerk’s time in dealing with this issue over the past several weeks. Mayor Willson stated he would like to consider an administrative fee. Mr. Boganey asked whether the ordinance provides for an administrative fee penalty. Mr. Gilchrist agreed with Mr. Boganey that the penalty would need to be cast as a civil penalty, noting the City’s cost at $300 is modest but would be partial reimbursement. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that is less than she was thinking to impose but is willing to consider that level. She suggested the resolution cite that no further violations shall occur, noting the City wants to make sure the new liquor establishments it is trying to attract know they are required to follow the rules. Mayor Willson clarified the discussion was to suspend $1,000 of the civil penalty unless another violation were to occur. In that case, the $1,000 civil penalty would be imposed. 01/22/18 -7- Councilmember Ryan noted that testimony from Mr. Brown indicates there was no intentional negligence. He asked how it operates with the State when there is a glitch in the payment and whether there is no communication from the State to the license holder of the need to cure the situation. Ms. Knutson described the permitting and licensing procedure, explaining that with the 2 a.m. license, the State of Minnesota Alcohol and Enforcement Division authorizes the City to issue the liquor license. The State issues a permit for one year from whenever the applicant applies and the City issues its license the calendar year from January 1 to December 31. Ms. Knutson explained the State does not notify the City that someone did not renew their permit and from August 1 to December 19, Jammin Wings did not have permission from the Commissioner of Public Safety to operate until 2 a.m. She stated this is the first time this situation has occurred, and Mr. Brown indicated he did not get anything from the State to say he needed to renew his permit. Mr. Boganey explained the State timeframe is based on when the business owner makes application for their first permit. Up to this year, Jammin Wings always renewed the State permit but there was a change in the management structure of the business and that did not happen. Councilmember Ryan stated while it is the owner’s responsibility, it is an example of a mistake and they need to be held responsible but not in a punitive manner. He stated his support to consider a civil penalty with the greater part suspended unless subsequent violations occur. Mr. Gilchrist asked for a sense of duration for the subsequent violations. Mayor Willson stated the license will be renewed December 31 so the suspension could be through the license period. The City Council agreed with the logic to tie the violation term to the license term. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to direct staff to prepare a resolution to impose a $1,300 civil penalty, suspending $1,000, contingent upon no further liquor license violations. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves stated support to consider Jammin Wings’ request for a 4 a.m. liquor license. Mayor Willson asked staff if there is an underlying issue to not consider that request. Mr. Boganey stated he has no new information but in a previous memo discussing the optional 2 a.m. liquor license elimination, it was indicated that a significant number of violations and police calls occur after 1 a.m. Mayor Willson pointed out that another violation would go against the license. Mr. Brown noted it is only for a short period of time, during the Super Bowl, and they will increase security during that time. 01/22/18 -8- Police Chief Tim Gannon stated there are a select number of days and at this time, he would not oppose this request. Mr. Boganey indicated under the City’s ordinance, staff has the authority to issue this permit if it is not opposed by the City Council. The consensus of the City Council was to support the administrative issuance of a 4 a.m. liquor license to Jammin Wings during the Super Bowl. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSES Mayor Willson explained the streamlined process that will now be used to consider Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental Licenses. Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide testimony on any of the rental licenses as listed on tonight’s meeting agenda. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a motion on Agenda Items 10a1 through 10a6. 10a1. 4200 JOYCE LANE 10a2. 6325 KYLE AVENUE N. 10a3. 6424 SCOTT AVENUE N. 10a4. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-26 APPROVING A TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 4450 58TH AVENUE N. 10a5. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-27 APPROVING A TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6015 ALDRICH AVENUE N. 10a6. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-28 APPROVING A TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6718 COLFAX AVENUE N. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six -month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for the following: 4200 Joyce Lane, 6325 Kyle Avenue N., 6424 Scott Avenue N., and, adopt Resolution No. 2018-26 Approving a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 4450 58th Avenue N.; Resolution No. 2018-27 Approving a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 6015 Aldrich Avenue N.; and, Resolution No. 2018-28 Approving a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 6718 Colfax Avenue N., with the requirement that the mitigation plans and all applicable ordinances must be strictly adhered to before renewal licenses would be considered. Motion passed unanimously. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:R esolution S elec ting P res iding O fficers- Mayor P ro Tem and Ac ting Mayor P ro Tem Requested Council Action: - Appoint the Mayor P ro Tem and Ac ting P res ident P ro Tem for 2019 Background: S ection 2.06 of the C ity C harter requires the C ouncil to choos e from its members a P res ident P ro Tem who s hall hold office at the pleasure of the c ouncil and s hall s erve as P resident in the Mayor's abs enc e and as Mayor in c as e of the Mayor's dis ability or abs enc e from the C ity. C ity C ounc il R esolution No. 92-262, Es tablishing and Designating an Acting P resident P ro Tem of the C ity C ouncil, states the most senior C ounc il member s hall pres ide in the abs enc e of both the Mayor and P resident P ro Tem, and that in the event two or more members have equal s eniority, then that member shall preside who received the mos t votes in their mos t recent election. F ollowing is a list of C ouncil members by seniority and the votes cast per member in the mos t recent election. Dan Ryan (firs t elected November 7, 2006) Kris Lawrenc e-Anderson (first elec ted November 6, 2012) April G raves (firs t elected November 4, 2014) Marquita Butler (firs t elected November 8, 2016) Budget Issues: T here are no budget is s ues to cons ider. S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:R esolution Dec laring C ommitment to the Brooklyn C enter C ity C harter Requested Council Action: - Approve resolution D eclaring C ommitment to the B rooklyn C enter C ity C harter Background: T he C ity Manager is direc ted to place this resolution for re-adoption on the agenda for the first meeting of the C ity C ounc il eac h January as information as and reminder of C ounc il/Manager respons ibilities. Budget Issues: T here are no budget is s ues to cons ider. S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ______________ RESOLUTION DECLARING COMMITMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center voters in 1966 adopted a City Charter creating a Council/Manager form of government; and WHEREAS, said Charter provides that the City Council shall determine all matters of policy, and the City Manager shall be the head of the administrative branch of the City Government; and WHEREAS, the Charter provides that there be no separate administrative boards or commissions other than advisory boards or commissions; and WHEREAS, numerous advisory commissions have served the City since adoption of the Charter; and WHEREAS, the Charter provides that the City Manager shall control and direct all departments and divisions of the City and shall have the right to take part in Council discussion and shall recommend such measures as deemed necessary; and WHEREAS, the Charter prohibits Council members from dictating the appointment of any person to office or employment by the City Manager except as provided in Chapter 6 of this Charter; and WHEREAS, the Charter requires the Council to deal with and control the administrative service solely through the City Manager and prohibits any Council member from giving orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is charged by the Charter to see that the City Charter and the laws and resolutions of the City are enforced; and WHEREAS, the Council as a whole also has an obligation to ensure that its business is conducted pursuant to the City Charter and the norms of acceptable and courteous business behavior; and WHEREAS, Council members must depend upon the City Manager and staff to provide them with a great amount of background information, data, and expertise to aid in deliberating issues, developing policy, and administering the Council’s responsibilities; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the services provided by the staff is in large part determined by a relationship of trust and mutual respect between the staff and the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council: 1. To rededicate itself to the spirit and letter of the City Charter and to commit itself to ensuring compliance by the City Council collectively and individually with that spirit and letter of the City Charter. 2. To rededicate itself to the checks and balances of the City Charter that keep City government accountable. 3. To pledge that in its dealings with citizens and City staff, that the City Council will treat such citizens and staff with respect and courtesy. The Council shall deal with staff in accordance with the City Charter through the City Manager. 4. To discharge its responsibilities as intended and established by federal, state, and local laws and the City Charter, and to do so in a fair and impartial manner for the good of the whole City and without regard for personal gain or interests. 5. To direct the City Manager to place this resolution for re-adoption on the agenda for the first meeting of the City Council each January hereafter, as information and reminder of Council/Manager responsibilities. January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:R esolution R ec ognizing the C ontributions of Ethnic P opulations and Heritage C elebrations Requested Council Action: - Approve a resolution R ecognizing the C ontributions of E thnic P opulations and H eritage C elebrations Background: S inc e 2003, as part of the C ity C ounc il's goal of inc lusiveness, one of the aspec ts was to recognize the various ethnic populations and their contributions as well as heritage c elebrations . T he proposed res olution implements that C ouncil policy by an inclus ive lis t of c elebrations and c ontributions in one res olution. By adopting this res olution, the C ity ac knowledges these many events that oc cur throughout the cours e of the year. T his lis t is reviewed and amended annually. Budget Issues: T here are no budget is s ues to cons ider. S trategic Priorities and Values: Enhanc ed C ommunity Image, Inclus ive C ommunity Engagement, O perational Exc ellenc e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNIC POPULATIONS AND HERITAGE CELEBRATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has established a goal to promote the inclusion of all residents in Brooklyn Center’s community life by emphasizing opportunities to include all residents in the community’s activities and plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that its cultural composition has changed significantly over the past two decades, with its ethnic population over half of its total population; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center is strengthened by the rich cultural diversity of its people, and welcomes individuals of all races, religions, and cultural backgrounds; and WHEREAS, each individual brings a part of his or her own heritage and over time each heritage becomes part of our common heritage, leading us to become a more united people; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the vital contributions ethnic populations have made to the strength and diversity of our community and recognizes their rich legacy of ingenuity, perseverance, and achievement; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following heritage celebrations and all other heritage celebrations reflected in Brooklyn Center’s population are recognized for the purpose of encouraging our citizens to learn more about the history of ethnic populations and how they have contributed to the culture and heritage of our community: February African American History Month March Irish-American Heritage Month March 25 Greek Independence Day April 14 Pan American Day May Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month May Jewish American Heritage Month May 17 (Syttende Mai) Norwegian Constitution Day June Caribbean-American Heritage Month June 6 Swedish National Day July 1 Somali Independence Day July 26 Liberian Independence Day September 15-October 15 Hispanic Heritage Month October Italian American Heritage Month October 6 German-American Day November Indigenous American Heritage Month RESOLUTION NO. _______________ January 14, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. COU N C IL ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Development Director F R O M:Jesse Anders on, Deputy Direc tor of C ommunity Development S UBJ EC T:An O rdinance Amending C hapter 1 and 35 of the C ity C ode of O rdinanc es R egarding Bee Keeping Requested Council Action: - M otion to approve the first reading of an O rdinance Amending C hapter 1 and 35 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances regarding bee keeping and calling for a public hearing and second reading to be held on F ebruary 11, 2019 Background: T he C ity C ounc il d is cus s ed the regulatio n of bee keeping at res id ential p ro p erties at their O cto b er 8, 2018, work session. At the meeting S taff p res ented informatio n to the C ounc il on the C ity's exis ting regulations related to the keep ing of bees. T he C ity Atto rney provid ed an opinion that the keeping o f bees is no t permitted under the existing language of the C ity C ode, whic h is silent on the topic. At the meeting the C ounc il d irec ted staff to proceed with d rafting o rd inance language that wo uld permit the keeping o f b ees at res id ential properties . T he C o unc il further d irected the Hous ing C ommis s ion to take up the is s ue, review the draft ordinanc e language, and provide a recommendation on how to proceed. T he Hous ing C ommission disc ussed b ee keep ing at their O cto b er and Novemb er meetings . T he following recommendations were made by the Hous ing C ommission related to the ordinance: R equire property owners who intend to keep bees to register their properties R equire training/c ertific ation for home owners who keep bees Allow for the ability to deny a regis tration due to a neighbor with a documented bee allergy R equire registration renewals every 2-3 years Not charge a fee for regis tration renewals Not require an inspec tion for registration renewals O verview of O rdinanc e: Up to 4 Hives in an R 1 or R 2 zoning dis tric t allowed R egistration with c ity required Apiary s ite must be inspec ted prior to approving regis tration Applicant must attend a training or receive c ertific ation in bee keeping Neighbors within 200 feet would be notified prior to approving a regis tration If neighbor pres ents a documented bee allergy regis tration maybe denied R egistration denials c an be appealed to a hearing offic er and then to C ity C ouncil 2 year renewal for registrations C olony Loc ation: Mus t be loc ated in rear yard Mus t be a minimum of 30 feet from adjacent dwellings or a fly away barrier is required Water source required Bee keeping equipment s hall be properly maintained and well kept Attached to this report is the propos ed ordinanc e, which was prepared by the C ity Attorney. Als o attac hed to this report is the November 20, 2018, Hous ing C ommission pac ket whic h inc ludes the O c tober 8, 2018, C ity C ouncil report, bac kground information on bee keeping, and a copy of Brooklyn P ark's bee keeping ordinanc e. Budget Issues: T here will be s taff time required for adminis tering the regis tration application process. It is not antic ipated that additional staffing will be required due to the low number of antic ipated registrations . A res olution adopting the fee for the registration will be inc luded in the C ounc il R eport during the s econd reading. S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity 1 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ____ day of __________, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance related to beekeeping. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING BEEKEEPING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN: Article I. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 1-101 setting out definitions is amended as follows and by renumbering the provisions in this Section as needed: __. Accredited Minnesota Institution. Accredited Minnesota institution means an educational institution holding accredited status which has been licensed or registered by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education at the time a registrant obtained their certification . __. Apiary. Apiary means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees on a property . __. Apiary Site. Apiary site means the particular portions of a property upon which one or more hives are located. __. Beekeeper. Beekeeper means a person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of honeybees or a person who owns or controls a property on which a colony is located whether or not the person is intentionally keeping honeybees . __. Beekeeping Equipment. Beekeeping equipment means anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards, and extractors. __. Colony. Colony means an aggregate of honey bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey . __. Flyway Barrier. Flyway barrier means a barrier that raises the flight path of bees as they come and go from a hive . __. Hive. Hive means the receptacle inhabited by a colony . 2 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 __. Honey Bee or Bee. Honey bee or bee means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee , apis mellifera . This term does not include wasps, hornets, African subspecies, or Africanized hybrids. __. Nucleus Colony. Nucleus colony means a small quantity of honey bees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual hive box designed for a particular purpose , and containing no supers . __. Registrant. Registrant is any registered beekeeper and any person who has applied for approval of a beekeeping registration. __. Rooftop. Rooftop means, for the purpose of regulating beekeeping, the uppermost section of a primary or accessory structure of at least one full story and at least twelve feet in height . Areas including, but not limited to, decks, patios and balconies shall not be considered a rooftop . __. Super. Super means a box that holds the frames where bees will store the honey. __. Swarming. Swarming means the process where a queen bee leaves a colony with a large group of worker bees in order to form a new honey bee colony. __. Unusual Aggressive Behavior. Unusually aggressive behavior means, for the purpose of regulating beekeeping, any instance in which unusual aggressive characteristics such as stinging or attacking without provocation occurs. For the purposes of this definition, “provocation” means an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a bee to sting or attack . Article II . Brooklyn Center City Code is amended by adding a new Section 1-140 regarding beekeeping as follows: Section 1-140. BEEKEEPING. 1. Restricted. No person shall keep, harbor, maintain, or allow to be kept any hive or other facility for the housing of honeybees on or in any property in the City unless the person is registered with the City as provided in this Section and the bees are kept at an approved apiary site on the registrant’s property . Hives may only be located on a single-family or two-family residential property in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts and n o more than four (4) hives may be kept on a property. The keeping of any hives in any other zoning district in the City is prohibited. 2. Registration Process. a. A person seeking to register to keep bees must submit an application using the City’s approved form. All requested information must be provided along with the 3 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 application fee in the amount set by the City Council. Incomplete applications will not be processed. b. The registrant shall live in the dwelling on the same property that is to serve as the apiary. If the registrant does not own the property, the property owner must provide a written statement to the City of permission for the registrant to keep bees on the property and acknowledging the City’s right to inspect the property as provided in this Section. c. Submission of an application for registration constitutes consent by the registrant, and any other person who may have an interest in the property to which the application relates, for the City to inspect the apiary sites as provided in this Section. d. Apiary sites may only be located on a single-family or two-family residential property located in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts. e. The property on which an apiary is to be located must be in compliance with all applicable City regulations. f. Each proposed apiary site must be identified on the application along with such additional information as may be required to demonstrate that each such site complies with the colony location restrictions in this Section. g. No bees may be brought to an apiary site until it is registered by the City. h. The initial application for registration must be accompanied by a certificate of attendance indicating the registrant has completed a beekeeping training and education course conducted by an accredited Minnesota institution. i. The City shall inspect the property on which a new apiary site is proposed before issuing a registration for the site. j. An application for registration shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and shall be acted on administratively. If the application proposes a new apiary site, the City shall send written notice of the proposed registration to the owners of property located within two hundred (200) feet of the property line of the property on which the new apiary site is to be located. Any owner within the notification area may submit a written objection to the registration to the City within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice. The City shall consider the written objections received from within the notice area before acting on an application. If a resident living within the notice area submits a timely written objection that includes written medical documentation from a licensed physician that the person is allergic to honeybee venom, the City shall deny the application. 4 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 k. The City shall provide written notice of its decision on the application to the registrant and to any owner within the notice area that submitted a written objection. Any such person may appeal the City’s decision by filing a notice of appeal with the City within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice of decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal and identify the requested relief. Timely appeals shall be processed and acted on as provided in this Section. l. An approved registration is limited to the particular person and the approved apiary sites only. Any proposed change in the beekeeper, apiary site, or the addition of a new apiary site shall require a new registration. m. A registration shall be valid until March 31 of the second calendar year following initial issuance and shall be renewed by the registrant prior to expiration every other year by submitting a renewal form to the Community Development Department on the form provided by the City. If the registration is not renewed, the beekeeper is required to remove all bees and beekeeping equipment from the property within ninety (90) days. 3. Inspections. a. If an application is for a new apiary site, the City shall inspect the property prior to acting on the registration. b. Upon prior notice to the owner of the apiary, City staff shall have the right to inspect any registered apiary. c. In the case of a complaint regarding an apiary, City staff may inspect the apiary at all reasonable times without prior notice to the owner of the apiary. 4. Colony Location Restrictions. A registrant shall locate hives in accordance with all of the following provisions. a. Entirely in rear yard of the property. b. At least five (5) feet from side or rear lot lines and shall not be erected, altered, or moved within six (6) feet of the principle building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior walls. c. At least thirty (30) feet from all dwellings on adjacent properties. d. Not located closer to an adjacent street than the dwelling on the property. This restriction does not apply to an alley that may be adjacent to a property. e. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, in each instance where any part of a hive is kept within thirty (30) feet of a lot line of the apiary site, a flyway barrier 5 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 of at least six (6) feet in height must be constructed that complies with the following: 1) The flyway barrier must consist of a wall, fence, or dense vegetation that requires honey bees to fly over, rather than through, the barrier; 2) If a dense vegetation flyway barrier is used, the initial planting may be a minimum of four (4) feet in height, but the vegetation must reach a height of at least six (6) feet within two (2) years after installation; 3) If a wall or fence flyway barrier is used, the materials must be decay resistant, maintained in good condition, and constructed in accordance with Chapter 35 of this Code; 4) The flyway barrier must extend parallel to the lot line of the apiary site for at least ten (10) feet in both directions from the hive or must contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least six (6) feet in height; and 5) A flyway barrier is not required if the hive is located on a rooftop. 5. Conditions. The following conditions and requirements apply to every registration issued by the City under this Section. Failure to comply with any of these conditions, or any other requirements of this Section, shall constitute sufficient grounds to suspend, revoke, or non-renew a registration. a. Compliance with all standards, requirements, and limitations contained in this Section. b. No more than four (4) hives may be kept at an approved apiary site. c. The hives shall be removed and the property restored if the keeping of bees is discontinued for more than six (6) months. d. A registrant is prohibited from keeping bees at any location in the City other than the apiary sites approved for a property as part of the registration. e. Honeybee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames which shall be kept in sound and usable condition. f. For each colony permitted to be maintained by this Section, there may also be maintained upon the same apiary, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to exceed one standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8) inch depth box, 10-frame hive body with a maximum of five (5) supers. g. Colonies within an apiary shall be provided with a convenient source of water, which must be located within ten (10) feet of each active colony. 6 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 h. Beekeeping equipment must be maintained in good condition, including keeping the hives free of chipped and peeling paint (if painted), and any unused equipment must be stored in an enclosed structure. i. Materials from a hive such as wax combs or other materials that might encourage robbing by other bees shall be promptly disposed of in a sealed container or placed within a building or other bee and vermin proof enclosure. j. Hives shall be continuously managed to provide adequate living space for their resident honeybees in order to prevent swarming. k. In any instance in which a colony exhibits unusual aggressive behavior, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to promptly re-queen the colony. 6. Temporary Keeping. If a registered beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of honeybees from locations where they are not desired, that person shall not be considered in violation of the colony density restrictions in this Section if the following conditions are met: a. The beekeeper temporarily houses the honeybees at an apiary site of a beekeeper registered with the City; b. The bees are not kept for more than thirty (30) days; and c. The apiary site remains in compliance with the other provisions of this Section. 7. Suspension, Revocation, or Non-Renewal. a. The City may suspend, revoke, or non-renew any registration issued under this Section due to any of the following : 1) The keeping of honeybees in a manner which constitutes a nuisance to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public; 2) Fraud , misrepresentation, or a false statement contained in a registration or renewal application, or during the course of the registered activity ; or 3) Any violation of the conditions or requirements of this Section, or of any applicable provisions in this Code related to the property. b. The City shall provide the registrant written notice of a violation and identify the period in which the violation must be corrected. If the registrant fails to correct the violation in accordance with the notice, the City may provide the registrant a written notice of its intent to suspend, revoke, or non-renew the registration. The notice shall indicate the registrant has an opportunity to be heard before the City 7 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 takes any action on the registration. If requested, the City shall schedule a hearing and provide notice to the registrant. The City Manager may elect to conduct the hearing or to assign the matter to a hearing officer appointed by the City. The decision of the City Manager or the hearing officer on the suspension, revocation, or non-renewal shall be issued in writing and provided to the registrant. The registrant may appeal the decision by filing a notice of appeal with the City within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice of decision. The notice of appeal must state the specific grounds for the appeal and identify the requested relief. Timely appeals shall be processed and acted on as provided in this Section. 8. Appeals. An appeal brought under this Section shall be heard by a hearing officer appointed by the City. The City shall provide the appellant at least ten (10) written notice of the hearing. At the hearing, the appellant may speak and present witnesses and other evidence. If the registrant is not the appellant, that person shall also be provided an opportunity to speak and present witnesses or other evidence at the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer shall issue a written decision that includes findings of fact . The City shall provide the appellant and the registrant (if not the appellant) a copy of the hearing officer’s decision. Article III. Section 35-310 of the Brooklyn Center City Code regarding R1 One Family Residence District is hereby amended as follows: Section 35-310. R1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. One family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2) Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3) Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 35- 530. 4) Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5) Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 8 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 6) Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35-900. 7) Signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8) A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9) The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms in the principal building by a resident family, provided adequate offstreet parking is provided. 10) Tents, stands and other temporary structures for churches, charities, carnivals and similar purposes as provided by Section 35-800 of these ordinances. 11) Rummage sales as defined in Section 35-900. 12) The keeping of chickens, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 1- 130. 13) The keeping of bees, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 1-140. Article IV. Section 35-311 of the Brooklyn Center City Code regarding R2 Two Family Residence District is hereby amended as follows: Section 35-311. R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. One and two family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2) Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3) Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 35- 530. 9 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 4) Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5) Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6) Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35-900. 7) Signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8) A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9) The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms in the principal building by a resident family, provided adequate offstreet parking is provided. 10) Tents, stands and other temporary structures for churches, charities, carnivals and similar purposes as provided by Section 35-800 of these ordinances. 11) Rummage sales as defined in Section 35-900. 12) The keeping of chickens, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 1- 130. 13) The keeping of bees, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 1-140. Article V. Licensing Deadline. Beekeepers currently operating in the City prior to the effective date of the Ordinance shall have until July 1, 2019 to apply for registration under Section 1-140. Any hives within the City that are not kept by a registered beekeeper at an approved apiary site shall be removed by September 1, 2019. Article VI. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this ___ day of __________, 2019. _______________________________ Mike Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk 10 549101v4 TJG BR291-4 Date of Publication _________________________ Effective Date _____________________________ (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.) HOUSING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment DATE: November 20, 2018 TO: Housing Commission FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development/HRA Specialist SUBJECT: Discussion on Honey Bee Keeping Recommendation: It is recommended that the Housing Commission provide direction to staff on a draft Bee keeping ordinance and/or a recommendation not to permit Bee keeping. Background: The City Code is largely silent on the keeping of bees, but that the language that did exist could be interpreted to prohibit the keeping of bees. However, the City’s past practice has been to not prohibit the keeping of honey bees. The City Council discussed bee keeping at the October 8, 2018 Council Work session an d has directed staff to work through he Housing Commission and the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation relating to the keeping of bees. It was discussed at the last Housing Commission Meeting that Staff would prepared a draft ordinance for review or modification. Further, Gary Reuter from the University of Minnesota Bee Lab has been invited to attend the Housing Commission meeting to provide additional input and answer question. Ordinance Overview: Allows for up to 4 Hives Must be located in backyard 30 feet from adjacent dwellings or provide a flyaway barrier License required and appeal process for denial Should it include beekeeper training? Attachments: Draft Ordinance Bee Keeping Proposal from Resident 10-8-2018 Work-session Memo Brooklyn Park Bee Keeping Packet Minneapolis Bee Keeping Information University of Minnesota Bee Keeping Ordinance Comparison BEEKEEPING DEFINITIONS APIARY. The assembly of one or more colonies of bees on a single lot . APIARY SITE. The lot upon which an apiary is located. BEEKEEPER. A person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of honeybees or a person who owns or controls a lot on which a colony is located whether or not the person is intentionally keeping honeybees. BEEKEEPING EQUIPMENT. Anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors. COLONY. An aggregate of honey bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs and honey. FLYWAY BARRIER. A barrier that raises the flight path of bees as they come and go from a hive. HIVE. The receptacle inhabited by a colony. HONEY BEE. All life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera. This definition does not include wasps, hornets, African subspecies or Africanized hybrids. NUCLEUS COLONY. A small quantity of honey bees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual hive box designed for a particular purpose, and containing no supers. BEE KEEPING LICENSE. Any registered beekeeper and any person who has applied for approval of a beekeeping license. ROOFTOP. The uppermost section of a primary or accessory structure of at least one full story and at least twelve feet in height. Areas including but not limited to decks, patios and balconies shall not be considered a rooft op. SUPER. A box that holds the frames where bees will store the honey. SWARMING. The process where a queen bee leaves a colony with a large group of worker bees in order to form a new honey bee colony. UNUSUAL AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR . Any instance in which unusual aggressive characteristics such as stinging or attacking without provocation occurs. Provocation is an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a bee to sting or attack . Section 1-130. BEE KEEPING. 1. No person shall keep, harbor, maintain or allow to be kept any hive or other facility for the housing of honeybees on or in any property in the City without an approved Bee Keeping License. 2. Keeping. Up to four(4) hives may be kept on a single-family or two-family residential property in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts. The keeping of any hives in any other zoning district in the City is prohibited. 3. Requirements. Hives allowed by this Section shall be kept in accordance with all of the following: a. Honeybee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames which shall be kept in sound and usable condition b. For each colony permitted to be maintained in this section, there may also be maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to exceed one standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8) inch depth box, ten frame hive body with a maximum of 5 supers. c. Colonies on the apiary site shall be provided with a convenient source of water which must be located within 10 feet of each active colony. d. Beekeeping equipment must be maintained in good condition, including keeping the hives free of chipped and peeling paint if painted, and any unused equipment must be stored in an enclosed structure. e. Materials from a hive such as wax combs or other materials that might encourage robbing by other bees shall be promptly disposed of in a sealed container or placed within a building or other bee and vermin proof enclosure. f. Hives shall be continuously managed to provide adequate living space for their resident honeybees in order to prevent swarming. g. In any instance in which a colony exhibits unusual aggressive behavior, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to promptly re-queen the colony. 4. The colony must be located in accordance with all of the following: a. Located Entirely in rear yard of the property; b. At least five (5) feet from side or rear lot lines and shall not be erected, altered, or moved, within six (6) feet of the principle building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall; c. At least thirty (30) feet from all dwellings on adjacent properties; and d. Shall not be located closer to an adjacent street than the owner’s dwelling. e. Shall be removed and the site restored if the keeping of bees is discontinued for more than six (6) months. f. Except as otherwise provided in this Section , in each instance where any part of a hive is kept within thirty feet of a lot line of the apiary site, a flyway barrier of at least six feet in height must be constructed . (1) The flyway barrier must consist of a wall, fence, or dense vegetation that requires honey bees to fly over, rather than through, the barrier. (2) If a dense vegetation flyway barrier is used, the initial planting may be a minimum of four feet in height, but the vegetation must reach a height of at least six feet within two years after installation. (3) If a wall or fence flyway barrier is used, the materials must be decay resistant, maintained in good condition and constructed in accordance with Sections 152.291- 152.293 of this code. (4) The flyway barrier must continue parallel to the lot line of the apiary site for at least ten feet in both directions from the hive or must contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least six feet in height. (5) A flyway barrier is not required if the hive is located on a rooftop. 5. If any beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of honeybees from locations where they are not desired, that person shall not be considered in violation of the colony density restrictions in this section if the following conditions are met: a. The person temporarily houses the honeybees at an apiary site of a beekeeper licensed with the City, b. The bees are not kept for more than thirty days, and c. The site remains in compliance with the other provisions of this section. 6. Bee Keeping License Required a. The application for license must be upon a form provided by the City. All required information must be complete. b. Each apiary site must apply for a license and receive approval prior to bringing any honeybees into the City. c. If the beekeeper relocates a hive or colony to a new apiary site, the beekeeper shall apply for an updated license, prior to the relocation, on the form provided by the City. d. The beekeeping license shall be valid until March 31 of each calendar year following initial issuance and must be renewed by the registrant prior to expiration each year by submitting a renewal form to the Community Development Department on the form provided by the City. e. Upon receipt of an application for initial registration, the City will send written notice to all owners of properties located within 200 feet of the property line of the apiary site(s) identified on the application. Any objections to the license must be made in writing and received within fourteen (14) days of mailing the notice. If any written objection is received, the license application must be referred to the City Manager. (1) The license application must be denied if the City receives a written objection from a resident living within the designated notification area that includes medical documentation by a licensed physician of an allergy to honeybee venom. f. Beekeeping training and education is required for the beekeeper prior to the issuance of the initial beekeeping permit by the City. At the time of application for license, the beekeeper must submit a certificate of completion of a honeybee keeping course from an accredited Minnesota institution. g. The fees for the license will be determined by the City Council in the City's fee schedule. h. The property must be in compliance with all other applicable City regulations in order to receive approval and renewal. i. If the standards of practice are not maintained subsequent to issuance of a beekeeping permit, the permit may be revoked by the City Manager. j. Beekeepers operating in the City prior to the effective date of the Section will have until July 1, 2019 to apply for registration. k. Upon initial license, annual renewal or any updated license, each beekeeper must allow for an inspection of the site. l. Upon prior notice to the owner of the apiary site, City staff shall have the right to inspect any apiary. m. In the case of a complaint regarding the apiary, the apiary site may be inspected without prior notice. 7. APPEAL AND HEARING PROCEDURE a. Licenses issued under this Section may be denied, revoked or non-renewed due to any of the following: (1) The keeping of honeybees in a manner which constitutes a nuisance to the health, safety or general welfare of the public; (2) Fraud, misrepresentation, or a false statement contained in the license application or during the course of the registered activity ; (3) Any violation of the applicable provisions in this Chapter. b. Notice of approval, denial , revocation or non-renewal must be made in writing to the registrant and to any person opposing the application for initial license specifying the reason(s) for the action. The registrant or any person opposing the application may request a hearing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notification letter. c. A hearing officer shall hold a hearing on a contested approval, denial, revocation, or non- renewal. The hearing officer shall be a person appointed by the City. At the hearing, the applicant and any person objecting to the application for initial license may speak and may present witnesses and other evidence. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer shall issue a written decision that includes findings of fact. The city shall provide the registrant and any objecting party with a copy of the hearing officer's decision. The registrant may appeal the hearing officer's decision in accordance with state law. 1. Purpose Honeybees are an asset to the community and important in the pollination of plants and production of honey and other products. The purpose of this ordinance is to allow for the hobby of keeping honeybees and to establish certain requirements for beekeeping within the City, to avoid issues which might otherwise be associated with beekeeping in populated areas. Urban beekeeping is the practice of keeping bee colonies in urban areas. It may also be referred to as hobby beekeeping or backyard beekeeping. Bees from city apiaries are said to be "healthier and more productive than their country cousins".[1 Their presence also provides cities with environmental and economic benefits. Most cities in North America at one time prohibited the keeping of bees, but in recent years beekeepers have had success in overturning bee bans. Bees pollinate a wide variety of plants, and the honey they produce is often sold to local restaurants and in local shops. 2. Definitions -Apiary. The assembly of one or more colonies of bees on a single lot. -Apiary Site. The lot upon which an apiary is located. -Beekeeper. A person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of honeybees or a person who owns or controls a lot on which a colony is located whether or not the person is intentionally keeping honeybees. -Beekeeping Equipment. Anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom board and extractors. -Colony. An aggregate of honeybees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brook, combs and honey. -Hive. The receptacle inhabited by a colony. -Honeybee. All life stages of the common domestic honeybee, apis mellifera. This definition does not include wasps, hornets, African subspecies or Africanized hybrids. -Nucleus Colony. A small quantity of honeybees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual hive box designed for a particular purpose, and containing no supers. -Queen. An adult mated female that lives in a honeybee colony or hive that is usually the mother of most, if not all, of the bees in the beehive. A queen is developed from larvae selected by workers bees and specifically fed in order to become sexually mature. -Residents on in Brooklyn Center may be permitted to keep and raise honeybees as a hobby and shall be limited to 4 colonies per property. -Honeybee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames which shall be kept in sound and usable condition -Hives must be located a minimum of 10 feet from any adjacent dwelling unit. -If the front entrance of a hive faces a neighbors property and is less than 20 feet from your property line, a flyway barrier ( wall, fence, dense vegetation, or combination) must be installed. -Beekeeping equipment must be maintained in good condition, including keeping the hives free of chipped and peeling paint if painted, and any unused equipment must be stored in an enclosed structure. -Unused beekeeping equipment should be kept secure from weather,attracting varmints potential theft, or occupancy by swarms. -If any Brooklyn Center beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of honeybees from locations where they are not desired, that person shall not be considered in violation of the colony density restrictions in this section if the following requirements are met: (1) The bees are not kept for more than thirty (30) days; and (2) The site remains in compliance with the other provisions of this section. -Colonies on the apiary site shall be provided with a convenient source of water which must be located within 10 feet of each active colony. -For each colony permitted to be maintained in this section, there may also be maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to exceed one standard nine and five-eighths (9 5/8) inch depth box, ten frame hive body with a maximum of 5 supers. HOUSING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Housing Commission FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development/HRA Specialist SUBJECT: Discussion on Honey Bee Keeping Recommendation: It is recommended that the Housing Commission provide direction to staff on a draft Bee keeping ordinance and/or a recommendation not to permit Bee keeping. Background: The City Code is largely silent on the keeping of bees, but that the language that did exist could be interpreted to prohibit the keeping of bees. However, the City’s past practice has been to not prohibit the keeping of honey bees. The City Council discussed bee keeping at the October 8, 2018 Council Work session and has directed staff to work through he Housing Commission and the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation relating to the keeping of bees. Ordinance Consternations: Should Honey Bee’s be a permitted use in residential districts? If so, should a license be required? How many hives should be allowed? What should the setback be? Attachments: 10-8-2018 Work-session Memo Brooklyn Park Bee Keeping Packet Minneapolis Bee Keeping Information University of Minnesota Bee Keeping Ordinance Comparison 10/11/2018 Ordinances | Bee Lab https://www.beelab.umn.edu/resources-beekeepers/ordinances 1/5 Bee Lab Ordinances Although we try to keep this as up to date and accutate as possible, we recommend that you connect with your local authority to verify all information regarding bee ordinances. If you have additions or changes that should be made to this information please email Gary at reute001@umn.edu (mailto:reute001@umn.edu) Fellow bee lovers, it seemed that it might be useful to have an index of local bee ordinances. As part of a summer clerkship at the Best & Flanagan law firm, University of Minnesota law student Ashleigh Leitch compiled the attached list including hyperlinks to ordinances and regulations where available along with city contact information. As you all continue to proselytize about urban beekeeping this list may be of some use. Ashleigh gets the credit for assembling in research supported by Best & Flanagan. Information current as of date shown. City County Ordinance Citation Ordinance Language Andover Anoka Title 5, Chapter 1, Section (d) Must be zoned R1, R2, or R3 and have at least two acres. Anoka Anoka Section 10- 2 Bees are not mentioned in the city code, but the city planner said she would consider honey bees to be "non-domesticated" animal. The code Apple Valley Dakota Currently, no ordinance on bees. However, code prohibits non-domestic animals, and City interprets bees as non-domestic. City is revising the Arden Hills Ramsey Chapter 13, 25.07 Bees are considered farm animals and are allowed within city limits as long as the lot meets the set back requirements (which depend upon ho Bayport Washington Section 14 Honey bees are not allowed within City limits. Blaine Anoka Section 14- 225 Areas zoned residential may not have honey bees. Areas zoned agricultural may have honey bees. Bloomington Hennepin Section 12.116(a) (2) Owners of bees, shall have at least one acre per bee hive not exceeding twenty-four (24) cubic feet in size. Farm poultry, farm animals and be of the farm poultry, farm animals and bees shall live in the dwelling on the property. Brooklyn Center Hennepin Section 1- 101 No mention of bees in ordinances, so honey bees are permitted. Brooklyn Park Hennepin Section 92.50 Honey bees are permitted in lots over 5 acres. Other require registration. Burnsville Dakota Section 6- 2-20 Honey bees are prohibited in all parts of Burnsville. Carver Carver Section 1005.02 Codicil 1 allows animals not listed under Section 1005.02 in city limits as long as they are not a nuisance. Therefore, honey bees are allowed a Centerville Anoka Chapter 90.02(B) "Licensing Honey Bees. Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, a person may keep honey bee colonies on any premises after first ob except in compliance of this section. (1) Lot size shall be a minimum of one-half acre; (2) No more than two honey bee colonies shall be allowe Applicant must document at least 16 hours of training in beekeeping, and (5) the colony shall be maintained in good order and not be a nuisan Champlin Hennepin Honey bees are not mentioned within Champlin's ordinances. The City would allow honey bees as long as they were not a nuisance and the n Chanhassen Hennepin and Carver Chapter 20 Bees are considered a farm animal and are allowed on properties of 10 acres or more. Chaska Carver Chapter 5, Section 82 The Chaska Police Department is in charge of code enforcement. Police officer told me they would allow a honey bee hive as long as it didn't Circle Pines Anoka Section 320.02(B) "Licensing Honey Bees. Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, a person may keep honey bee colonies on any premises after first ob except in compliance of this section. (1) Lot size shall be a minimum of one-half acre; (2) No more than two honey bee colonies shall be allowe Applicant must document at least 16 hours of training in beekeeping, and (5) the colony shall be maintained in good order and not be a nuisan Coon Rapids Anoka 6-502(2), (5) "Non-domestic animals are defined as … bees. It shall be unlawful to keep, maintain, harbor, or feed any non-domestic animal within the City e Corcoran Hennepin Section 1020.020: bees are agricultural use. Allowed in areas zoned for agricultural use. 10/11/2018 Ordinances | Bee Lab https://www.beelab.umn.edu/resources-beekeepers/ordinances 2/5 Cottage Grove Washington Section 11- 3-7 Bees are considered a farm animal and are allowed on properties of 5 or more acres. Section defining "farm animal" is 11-1-3. Crystal Hennepin City ordinances do not cover bees. Therefore, bees are allowed. Dayton Wright and Hennepin Section 1001.42 subd.8(1) (e) Honey bees are prohibited in areas zoned residential - Old Village, residential - mobile home, industrial and business, unless you have a cond Duluth St. Louis 1959-6-80 Ok in areas zoned rural;. Others require license. Eagan Dakota Section 10.12 Honey bees may be kept on properties in areas that are zoned agricultural and have a minimum of five acres. Or by permit. Edina Hennepin Section 300.11 Bees are allowed with permit. ordinance link (http://edinamn.gov/edinafiles/files/Advisory_Boards/Planning_Commission/Staff%20Reports/2014/Nov12/Item%20VIII_%20A_% Elko New Market Scott Section 6- 4-5 Section 6-4-2 Honeybees are considered a farm animal. Section 6-4-5 states, "Farm animals shall be kept only in areas approved under the c Excelsior Hennepin Section 6-4 Ordinance defines "undomesticated animal" as "any animal, mammal, amphibian, or reptile, which is of a species which is wild by nature or of inherently dangerous to human beings." "Any person may own, keep, harbor, or maintain any nondomesticated animal, provided that it weighs Falcon Heights Ramsey Section 113-3 Honey bees are defined as a farm animal. Farm animals are not allowed to be harbored within the city. The Falcon Heights City Council looked Faribault Rice 2017-4 Bees allowed by permit Farmington Dakota 6-4-2 Allowed with restrictions http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=463&chapter_id=2... (http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebo Forest Lake Anoka Chapter 99 Bees are defined as a farm animal. City code allows farm animals in areas zoned for agricultural use and if the property is five acres or more. Fridley Anoka Section 101.05 Allowed by permit. application at FridleyMN.gov Golden Valley Hennepin Section 10.32 Honey bees are defined as a farm animal. Farm animals are not allowed to be harbored within the city. Hastings Dakota and Washington Chapter 91.01 Bees are not mentioned in the city code, so they are permitted. City planner warned that if the bees stung people or upset the neighbors, they Hibbing St. Louis Section 10.23 Honey bees are defined as a farm animal. Farm animals are not allowed to be harbored within the city. Hopkins Hennepin Hopkins Code of Ordinances does not address honey bees, so they interpret that to mean they are not permitted. Hugo Washington Although not expressly listed in the ordinance, honey bees are considered "farm animals," so they are allowed in areas zoned agricultural and Independence Hennepin 510.05 subd. 46 Defines bees as "livestock." Bees are allowed in areas which are zoned agricultural. Inver Grove Heights Dakota Section 10- 2-2 Bees are allowed in areas zoned agricultural or estate. Jordan Scott No ordinance, so bees are not allowed. Perhaps could apply for a conditional use permit stating beekeeping as a home occupation. Lake Elmo Washington Title 9, Chapter 95.71 Honey bees are allowed on property five acres or more. Permit required for under 5 acres. Lake St. Croix Beach Washington No online ordinances No one from the City returned my messages. Lakeville Dakota title 11-35- 3 Bees are classified as farm animals and are not allowed on residential property, Lauderdale Ramsey Section 5- 3-1 Bees are defined as a farm animal. City ordinance 5-3-4-1 requires a permit to have a farm animal. Lil d l D k t S ti It'l if b ll d t i th di d t th Cit t d h 10/11/2018 Ordinances | Bee Lab https://www.beelab.umn.edu/resources-beekeepers/ordinances 3/5 Lilydale Dakota Section 801.01 It's unclear if bees are allowed or not in the ordinances, and no one at the City returned my phone messages. Lino Lakes Anoka Zoning Restricted to agricultural zoned land Long Lake Hennepin Honey bees are not mentioned in the Code. City of Long Lake's general position is if it is not expressly allowed, it is prohibited. Lonsdale Rice S90.01 Beekeeping allowed by permit. Mahtomedi Washington Chapter 3.02 "No person may keep within the City any of the following: any hive or other facility for the housing of bees." Maple Plain Hennepin Honey bees are not mentioned in the Code. City of Maple Plain's general position is that they are allowed, but are subject to the nuisance ordi Maplewood Ramsey Considering an urban agriculture ordinance, but so far no actual ordinance. Bees are allowed unless they become a nuisance. Marine on St. Croix Washington Chapter 5 City of Marine on St. Croix does not have an ordinance about honey bees. The City's position is that they are allowed unless they are a nuisan Medicine Lake Hennepin Section 200.2(7)(b) Bees are classified as farm animals. Must get a conditional use permit to have bees. Mendota Heights Dakota Ordinance 448, not yet codified Brand new ordinance: Bee keeping is allowed on properties of fifty (50) acres or more. Minneapolis Hennepin Section 74.80 Must get a permit from Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. Minnetonka Hennepin No ordinance on bees, so bees are allowed unless they are a nuisance. Village of Minnetonka Beach Hennepin Section 508(C)(28) (b) "No person shall keep or allow to be kept any hive or other facility for the housing of honeybees." Minnetrista Hennepin Section 1110.09 Bees are considered farm animals. "Farm animals may only be kept in A or AP zoning districts, or in a residential lot of at least ten acres in siz 300 feet of an adjoinin piece of property." Moundsview Ramsey Title 700 Chapt 701 Bees allowed by permit. Link to permit (http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B9DACB450-86B3-4304-946D-6016EF70 New Brighton Ramsey Honey bees requrie permit link to pemit (//www.ci.new-brighton.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B2CF34F28-6DFB-45DA-AF59-36896254F2 Newport Washington Section 600.21 Honey bees are considered a farm animal. Must have a permit from the City Council. Lot size must be at least four acres. Must provide written hive. Additional standards of practice listed in Section 600.21 subd. 3(F)(4). North St. Paul Ramsey Section 95.23 Honey bees are classified as a farm animal. No farm animals are allowed within city limits. Oak Park Heights Washington Section 602.02(B) Honey bees are classified as a farm animal. Farm animals are only permitted in areas zoned O - Open Space Conservation District and also n Oakdale Washington Section 4- 18 "No person shall keep or allow to be kept any man-made or manufactured hive or other facility for the housing of bees within the city without a Orono Hennepin Section 62- 1 Honey bees are classified as a farm animal and are allowed in areas zoned for agriculture. Osseo Hennepin Chapter 93.18(z) City code states that any caring for any non-domestic animal is a public nuisance, so beekeeping currently is not allowed. However, City Attorn change the ordinance. Plymouth Hennepin Zoning Ordinance 21170.01 subd.3 Bees are only allowed in areas zoned future restricted development (rural). Prior Lake Scott No ordinance, so bees are allowed unless they are a nuisance. Richfield Hennepin Section 905.41 Bees are considered non-domestic animals. All non-domestic animals are prohibited. Robbinsdale Hennepin Section 915.37 "It is unlawful to keep or maintain roosters or bees, without first having obtained a permit therefor." R H i S ti B l ifi d f i l d ll d i d i lt l 10/11/2018 Ordinances | Bee Lab https://www.beelab.umn.edu/resources-beekeepers/ordinances 4/5 Rogers Hennepin Section 125-1 Bees are classified as a farm animal and are allowed in areas zoned agricultural. Rosemount Dakota No ordinance on honey bees, so they are allowed. Roseville Ramsey No ordinance on honey bees, so they are allowed. The City reserves the right to regulate location and fencing in the future. Sauk Rapids Benton Section 4.10, Subd.22(C) Permits beekeeping limited to six hives. St. Anthony Village Hennepin No ordinance on honey bees, so City of St. Anthony Village's position is that they are not allowed. St. Francis Anoka Section 8- 3-5 "Bees shall not be kept on parcels smaller than five (5) acres in size. No parcel shall have more than one hive or colony housing structure not use. All hives shall be of the removable frame type. All hives shall be kept one hundred (100) feed from any property line." St. Louis Park Hennepin Bees are not addressed in city ordinance, so they are allowed as long as they are not a nuisance. St. Paul Ramsey Chapter 198.02(d) "No person shall keep or allow to be kept any hive or other facility for the housing of bees within the city without a permit." St. Paul Park Washington Ordinance #694 Honey bees are allowed; must get a permit and obey set back ordinance. Savage Scott Section 91.01(2) Bees are classified as a farm animal. Under Section 91.04, farm animals are "allowed only as a legal non-conforming use where a similar use consistently thereafter." Shakopee Scott Section 11.02(5)(B) Bees are classified as an "agricultural use" and allowed in areas zoned rural residential or agricultural. Shoreview Ramsey Section 601.020(E) Bees are allowed with restrictions and permit required Shorewood Hennepin Section 705.09 Bees are classified as an "urban farm animal." Section 705.09 subd 2(h) states, "The number of bee hives shall not exceed four." South St. Paul Dakota Section 15- 1(3) Bees are listed as a farm animal. Section 15-3 states, "It shall be illegal for any person to own, possess, harbor, or offer for sale, any farm anim Spring Park Hennepin Bees are not allowed in city limits. Stillwater Washington Section 27- 3 Bees are allowed in city limits as long as you have a permit. The ordinance sets forth a number of rules and regulations. Sunfish Lake Dakota Section 1225.01 Bees are considered farm animals. Only the farm animals expressly listed (such as bees) are allowed in the City of Sunfish Lake as long as yo Victoria Carver Chapter 30, Article VIII, Section 30- 313(13) Bees are only allowed in areas zoned agricultural and if you get a conditional use permit. Virginia St. Louis Honey bees are defined as a farm animal. Farm animals are not allowed to be harbored within the city. Waconia Carver Section 710.15 subd. 1 Bees are considered farm animals, so they are allowed in areas zoned agricultural. Wayzata Hennepin No ordinance, so bees are allowed unless they are a nuisance. West St. Paul Dakota Section 905.15 subd. 3 Bees are allowed. The only requirement is that the hives are at least 100 feet from neighboring houses. Some lots are too small to comply with White Bear Lake Ramsey and Washington Section 702.045 Bee keeping is allowed in City limits as long as you have a license. Woodbury Washington Section 24- 4 Bees are considered "livestock" and they are allowed on property of five or more acres in areas zoned rural residential or existing farmstead. 10/11/2018 Ordinances | Bee Lab https://www.beelab.umn.edu/resources-beekeepers/ordinances 5/5 U of M Bee Research Facility Department of Entomology 1634 Gortner Ave. St. Paul, MN 55113 © 2018 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. Privacy Statement Report Web Disability-Related Issue What’s all the buzz about? Since 2015, properties in Brooklyn Park can keep honeybees with an approved registration. Requirements • The number of hives allowed is based on the size of the property; a typical residential lot is allowed 2 hives. • Any hive on the property must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. • If a hive is located closer than 25 feet to the property line, a flyway barrier is required. • The beekeeper applying for the registration must have attended a beekeeping class from an accredited Minnesota institution. Public notification The City will notify all residents living within 200 feet of the property line of a proposed apiary (beekeeping) site when an application is received. All apiary locations will be shown on a public information map. Registration period Registrations are valid from April 1 through the following March 31 and must be renewed each year. Apply for an apiary registration Submit a completed registration form with the following: • The owner and beekeepers information • A sketch of the property showing the location of the hives, water source, setbacks and flyway barrier (if required) • A copy of the certificate of completion of a beekeeping course • A one-time registration fee of $75.00 Michelle Peterson Neighborhood Health Specialist 763-493-8116 Michelle.Peterson@brooklynpark.org City of Brooklyn Park City Hall 5200 85th Ave. N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 www.brooklynpark.org/ codeenforcement Beekeeping in Brooklyn Park Date Application Received at City: ________________ City of Brooklyn Park Community Development Department / Code Enforcement & Public Health Division 5200 85th Avenue North / Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 / Phone: 763 493 8070 / Fax 763 493 8391 Application for Apiary Registration www.brooklynpark.org GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT - TENNESSON WARNING: The data you supply on this for m will be used to process the registration you are applying for. You are not legally required to provide this data, but we will not be able to process the registration without it. The data will constitute a public record if and when the registration is granted. The following information is required. All applications are subject to a 21-day approval period.  Registration Period: April 1st –March 31st  Completed Application / Beekeeping Course Certificate  Registration Fee: $75 (Initial Registration Only) The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for registration subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and of the City of Brooklyn Park. Apiary Address:___________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner:___________________________________________________________________________ Owner Mailing Address:____________________________________________________________________ Owner Email Address:__________________________________ Owner Phone Number_________________ Is the apiary address located within the boundaries of a Homeowner’s Association? :  Yes  No If yes, is beekeeping allowed by the Homeowner’s Association? :  Yes  No Are there any bylaws, covenants, conditions or restrictions attached to your property which do not allow beekeeping to occur on the property? :  Yes  No Beekeeper’s Information Beekeeper’s Name (If different from above):_____________________________________________________ Contact Phone #:__________________________________________________________________________ Emergency Contact: ________________________________Emergency Phone #:______________________ I have completed a beekeeping course from an accredited MN Institution:  Yes  No Name of Minnesota Accred ited Institution that provided certificate :__________________________________ Please attach copy of certificate to registration form. Please check each box and then sign and date indicating that you have read and agree with the following:  I have received, read and understand city code Chapter 92 (the Beekeeping ordinance) and will comply with all requirements of this ordinance.  I understand the City of Brooklyn Park will notify all residents within 200 feet of the property line of my apiary site and i f a written objecti on is received within fourteen days of notification my application may be denied. (Chapter 92.56)  I understand my apiary will be subject to an inspection upon initial registration, annually for renewal, wit h any update to my registration and if a complaint is received. (Chapter 92.57)  I understand and agree that I may not engage in the practice of beekeeping within the City of Brooklyn Park until I have received notification that my apiary registration has been approved.  I understand that my apiary location is public information and that a map showing all apiary locations is available to the public. Applicant’s Signature: ____________________________________________Date:____________________ CCIITTYY UUSSEE OONNLLYY -- AApppprroovvaallss:: Date Neighbor Notification Sent:______________________________________ Objections Received:  Yes  No Site Inspection Date: ______________________________________  Passed  Failed APPROVED:  YES  NO Approved by: _________________________________________ Date Approved ___________ Maximum Number of Colonies/Hives Allowed:____________ Page 2 Page 2 Brooklyn Park Application for Apiary Registration Property & Apiary Diagram Please supply a scaled sketch of your property and apiary. The sketch must include the location of your house, accessory structures, your lot lines, all honeybee colonies, the required wat er source and the location of any required flyway barriers along . Please state how many feet each item is setback from the property’s lot lines. Examples For Office Use Only Zoning District:___________ Hives permitted:___________ Lot Size:________ ________ Acreage:_________________ Flyway Required  Yes  No Inspector Assigned:________________________________________ BEEKEEPING §92.50 DEFINITIONS ACCREDITED INSTITUTION. An educational institution holding accredited status which has been licensed or registered by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education at the time the registrant obtained their certificate. APIARY. The assembly of one or more colonies of bees on a single lot. APIARY SITE. The lot upon which an apiary is located. BEEKEEPER. A person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of honeybees or a person who owns or controls a lot on which a colony is located whether or not the person is intentionally keeping honeybees. BEEKEEPING EQUIPMENT. Anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors. COLONY. An aggregate of honey bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs and honey. FLYWAY BARRIER. A barrier that raises the flight path of bees as they come and go from a hive. HIVE. The receptacle inhabited by a colony. HONEY BEE. All life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera. This definition does not include wasps, hornets, African subspecies or Africanized hybrids. NUCLEUS COLONY. A small quantity of honey bees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual hive box designed for a particular purpose, and containing no supers. REGISTRANT. Any registered beekeeper and any person who has applied for approval of a beekeeping registration. ROOFTOP. The uppermost section of a primary or accessory structure of at least one full story and at least twelve feet in height. Areas including but not limited to decks, patios and balconies shall not be considered a rooftop. SUPER. A box that holds the frames where bees will store the honey. SWARMING. The process where a queen bee leaves a colony with a large group of worker bees in order to form a new honey bee colony. UNUSUAL AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR. Any instance in which unusual aggressive characteristics such as stinging or attacking without provocation occurs. Provocation is an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a bee to sting or attack. § 92.51 PURPOSE Honey bees are an asset to the community and important in the pollination of plants and in the production of honey and other products. The purpose and intent of this portion of Chapter 92 is to permit and establish requirements for the keeping of honey bee colonies, hives, and equipment within the City. § 92.52 BEEKEEPING LIMITED No person shall keep, harbor, maintain or allow to be kept any hive or other facility for the housing of honeybees on or in any property in the City without an approved registration unless otherwise exempted by Sections 92.54 A(5) and 92.56 (B). § 92.53 COLONY LOCATION (A) Hives cannot be located in the front yard and must be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from the rear or side property lines and 20 feet from public rights-of way unless further restricted elsewhere in this Code. A corner lot shall be considered to have two front yards. (B) Hives must be located a minimum of ten feet from any adjacent dwelling unit. (C) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, in each instance where any part of a hive is kept within twenty-five feet of a lot line of the apiary site, a flyway barrier of at least six feet in height must be constructed. (1) The flyway barrier must consist of a wall, fence, or dense vegetation that requires honey bees to fly over, rather than through, the barrier. (2) If a dense vegetation flyway barrier is used, the initial planting may be a minimum of four feet in height, but the vegetation must reach a height of at least six feet within two years after installation. (3) If a wall or fence flyway barrier is used, the materials must be decay resistant, maintained in good condition and constructed in accordance with Sections 152.291- 152.293 of this code. (4) The flyway barrier must continue parallel to the lot line of the apiary site for at least ten feet in both directions from the hive or must contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least six feet in height. (5) A flyway barrier is not required if the hive is located on a rooftop. 92.54 COLONY DENSITY (A) Every lot or parcel of land in the City shall be limited to the following number of colonies based on the size of the apiary lot: (1) One half acre or smaller is allowed two colonies (2) More than one half acre to three quarters of an acre is allowed four colonies (3) More than three quarter of an acre to one acre is allowed six colonies (4) More than one acre to five acres is allowed eight colonies (5) More than five acres, there is no restriction on the number of colonies and no registration is required. (B) If any beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of honeybees from locations where they are not desired, that person shall not be considered in violation of the colony density restrictions in this section if the following conditions are met: (1) The person temporarily houses the honeybees at an apiary site of a beekeeper registered with the City, (2) The bees are not kept for more than thirty days, and (3) The site remains in compliance with the other provisions of this section. § 92.55 REQUIRED CONDITIONS (A) Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which shall be kept in sound and useable condition. (B) Each colony on the apiary site shall be provided with a convenient source of water which must be located within ten feet of each active colony. (C) Materials from a hive such as wax combs or other materials that might encourage robbing by other bees shall be promptly disposed of in a sealed container or placed within a building or other bee and vermin proof enclosure. (D) For each colony permitted to be maintained, there may also be maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to exceed one standard nine and five- eights (9-5/8) inch depth box, ten frame hive body with no supers. (E) Beekeeping equipment must be maintained in good condition, including keeping the hives free of chipped and peeling paint if painted, and any unused equipment must be stored in an enclosed structure. (F) Hives shall be continuously managed to provide adequate living space for their resident honeybees in order to prevent swarming. (G) In any instance in which a colony exhibits unusual aggressive behavior, it shall be the duty of the beekeeper to promptly re-queen the colony. (H) Honey may not be sold from any residential property unless a home occupation permit has been obtained and required conditions met in accordance with City Code 152.262(B). § 92.56 REGISTRATION REQUIRED (A) The application for registration must be upon a form provided by the City. All required information must be complete. (B) Each apiary site must apply for registration and receive approval prior to bringing any honeybees into the City. Registration is not required for sites over 5 acres in size. (C) If the beekeeper relocates a hive or colony to a new apiary site, the beekeeper shall apply for an updated registration, prior to the relocation, on the form provided by the City. (D) The beekeeping registration shall be valid until March 31 of each calendar year following initial issuance and must be renewed by the registrant prior to expiration each year by submitting a renewal form to the Community Development Department on the form provided by the City. (E) Upon receipt of an application for initial registration, the City will send written notice to all owners of properties located within 200 feet of the property line of the apiary site(s) identified on the application. Any objections to the registration must be made in writing and received within fourteen (14) days of mailing the notice. If any written objection is received, the registration application must be referred to the City Manager. (1) The registration application must be denied if the City receives a written objection from a resident living within the designated notification area that includes medical documentation by a licensed physician of an allergy to honeybee venom. (F) Beekeeping training and education is required for the beekeeper prior to the issuance of the initial beekeeping permit by the City. At the time of application for registration, the beekeeper must submit a certificate of completion of a honeybee keeping course from an accredited Minnesota institution. (G) The fees for the registration will be determined by the City Council in the City’s fee schedule. (H) The property must be in compliance with all other applicable City regulations in order to receive approval and renewal. (I) If the standards of practice are not maintained subsequent to issuance of a beekeeping permit, the permit may be revoked by the City Manager. (J) Beekeepers operating in the City prior to the effective date of the Section will have until July 1, 2015 to apply for registration. § 92.57 INSPECTION (A) Upon initial registration, annual renewal or any updated registration, each beekeeper must allow for an inspection of the site. (B) Upon prior notice to the owner of the apiary site, City staff shall have the right to inspect any apiary. (C) In the case of a complaint regarding the apiary, the apiary site may be inspected without prior notice. § 92.58 APPEAL AND HEARING PROCEDURE (A) Registrations issued under this Section may be denied, revoked or non-renewed due to any of the following: (1) The keeping of honeybees in a manner which constitutes a nuisance to the health, safety or general welfare of the public; (2) Fraud, misrepresentation, or a false statement contained in the registration application or during the course of the registered activity; (3) Any violation of the applicable provisions in this Chapter. (B) Notice of approval, denial, revocation or non-renewal must be made in writing to the registrant and to any person opposing the application for initial registration specifying the reason(s) for the action. The registrant or any person opposing the application may request a hearing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notification letter. (C) A hearing officer shall hold a hearing on a contested approval, denial, revocation, or non- renewal. The hearing officer shall be a person appointed by the City. At the hearing, the applicant and any person objecting to the application for initial registration may speak and may present witnesses and other evidence. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer shall issue a written decision that includes findings of fact. The city shall provide the registrant and any objecting party with a copy of the hearing officer's decision. The registrant may appeal the hearing officer's decision in accordance with state law. 10/11/2018 Minneapolis Beekeeping Rules and Regulations - City of Minneapolis http://www.minneapolismn.gov/sustainability/homegrown/WCMS1P-133195 1/2 Sign up for e-mail updates from Homegrown Minneapolis. Upcoming Homegrown Meetings Wednesday, October 10, 2018 5:30-7:30 pm Food Council meeting 5:00-5:30 pm SPARK-Y presentation SPARK-Y Casket Arts Building, Room 101 681 17th Ave NE, Minneapolis Meeting Agenda 2018 Meeting Schedule Homegrown Highlights Apply for the Food Council Farmers Markets Homegrown Newsletter 2017 Homegrown Highlights Food Council Members Homegrown Heroes Contact Tamara Downs Schwei Homegrown Minneapolis/ Local Food Policy Coordinator (612) 673-3553 | email Minneapolismn.gov Minneapolis Beekeeping Rules and Regulations This web page summarizes city policy related to beekeeping. The complete list of rules and regulations is located in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (Title 4, Chapter 63, Section 63.100). Before applying for a permit, you are advised to read the full ordinance language. What are the application requirements? Take a Class: Provide a certificate of completion of a honeybee keeping course from one of the following: University of Minnesota Century College Three Rivers Park District Provide Details: Specify the location and number of hives, colonies and/or facilities where honeybees will be kept. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control (MACC) is required to inspect the location. Notify Neighbors: Show proof that you have notified all your immediate neighbors that you plan to keep bees on your property. Your notification method must be approved by MACC. If you are a renter, you will also need approval from your property owner. Pay a Fee: The beekeeping permit application fee is $100 and annual renewals are free. All permits expire on January 31st of each year. What are the rules? Make sure to provide a water source while the colony is active outside the hive. Maintain beekeeping equipment – keep hives painted and secure unused equipment from weather, potential theft, or occupancy by swarms. Notify MACC immediately if you are no longer able or willing to maintain your beehives. MACC will make the hives available to an approved honeybee rescue entity or dispose of them if necessary. There is a fifty dollar ($50.00) hive disposal fee. Colonies must be located at least 20 feet away from neighbors’ homes. The apiary property must be enclosed by a latching fence. If a colony is less than 25 feet from your property line, a flyway barrier (wall, fence, dense vegetation, or combination) must be installed. The flyway barrier must be at least six feet tall and must continue 10 feet along the lot line in each direction from the hive. All other sides of the area around the colonies shall have a barrier (wall, fencing, dense vegetation, or a combination) at least four feet tall. No barrier is required if adjoining property is undeveloped, zoned for agriculture/industry, or is a wildlife management area with no horse and foot trails within 25 feet of the apiary lot line. No barrier is needed on rooftop hives if they are at least 5 feet from the side of the structure and at least 15 feet from adjacent occupied structures. For further information or to apply for a permit, please visit the Animal Care and Control permits page or contact Teila Zoller at Minneapolis Animal Care and Control: Phone: 612-673-6246 Email: teila.zoller@minneapolismn.gov Visit our Keeping Bees page to access additional resources and learn more about ways the City of Minneapolis supports beekeeping. 10/11/2018 Minneapolis Beekeeping Rules and Regulations - City of Minneapolis http://www.minneapolismn.gov/sustainability/homegrown/WCMS1P-133195 2/2 Last updated Dec 14, 2017 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION November 20, 2018 COUNCIL COMMISSION ROOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission was called to order by Chairperson Goodell at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson – Mark Goodell - Present David Johnson - Present Tamika Baskin – Present Kathie Amdahl - Present Joan Schonning – Present Michael Stokes – Present Paul Oman - Present Also present was Staff Liaison Jesse Anderson and Council Liaison Marquita Butler. Sara Capers, Brooklyn Center Resident Gary Reuter, University of Minnesota Bee Lab APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was a motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Amdahl to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning and seconded by Commissioner Baskin to approve the minutes of the Housing Commission meeting on October 16, 2018 as amended. The motion passed. BEE KEEPING DRAFT ORDINANCE Staff Liaison Anderson provided an overview. Commissioner Baskin: I would support a license for bees. Do any cities have density requirements? Staff Liaison Anderson: Yes, some cities have lot size requirement. However, no cities have restriction on how many properties can have bees in an area. Commissioner Stokes: Are bees territorial? Page 2 Mr. Reuter: They are not territorial, but in most cities there are a small number of people that have a colony. Commissioner Johnson: Is there training for bee keeping? Mr. Reuter: Yes, it is a 2 day class. Commissioner Johnson: Are honey bees being lost in large numbers? Mr. Reuter: There has been a 45% loss. Commissioner Johnson: Will allowing more hives have an impact? Mr. Reuter: Hobby bee keeping wouldn’t necessarily improve numbers overall, but would see advantages in pollination for the neighborhood. Another benefit would be by spreading out bees it may help decrease the likely hood of bees being wiped out. Commissioner Baskin: What is the process to get a license and a certificate? Mr. Reuter: The licenses are to make sure they are meeting the requirements and the education is important because bee keeping isn’t easy. There is work and care needed. There could be an impact if not properly handled. There are other classes out there as well. Ms. Capers: Multiple places offer classes with a similar message. What are the concerns and why does the Commission want a license since chickens, cats and dogs are not licensed? Commissioner Baskins: What is the impact to neighbors if they are not being cared for? Mr. Reuter: They could get a mean colony and it would have to be re-queened. If they are more than 10 feet from the property line a neighbor wouldn’t really notice that there are bees. Commissioner Johnson: Who would do the inspection and are staff qualified? Staff Liaison Anderson: We would need training, but it wouldn’t be too much work. Commissioner Goodell: There are concerns about bee allergies. Mr. Reuter: This issue has come up, I have had bees and my wife, who has allergies, has never been stung. If my neighbor was allergic, I maybe wouldn’t keep bees. Some cities say that if it is verified they could deny. About 1-2% of people are allergic. Ms. Capers: There is a lot of misinformation or perceived information about city regulation. There was misinformation that the city was allowing bees. Many of her neighbors have bees. It is important that the ordinance doesn’t create an added fear. For the most, honey bees are a docile, nurturing species. Page 3 Commissioner Baskin: 14 days. What if they can’t get documentation of allergies within 14 days. Staff Liaison Anderson: The city would give time to provide documentation. Ms. Capers: I have 2 hives and they typically fly up. Commissioner Johnson: Would a curious child be an issue? Ms. Capers: It could be. Commissioner Johnson: Would they swarm? Ms. Capers and Mr. Reuter: No. Mr. Reuter: If the hive is tipped over they may sting a few times. Ms. Capers: A bee can’t sting like a wasp. It is difficult for them to sting. Commissioner Baskin: We would have licenses to be transparent and the neighbors have a right to know. It is important to notify neighbors. Mr. Reuters: The education requirement can be an opportunity for education. Commissioner Johnson: If the council passes and it is in paper, how many people will go do it? Ms. Capers: Not too many because it is expensive, starting out can cost $1,000. Commissioner Schonning: This is an investment. Ms. Capers: It is an expensive and time consuming hobby; there would be less people who are interested. Commissioner Johnson: What happens if the bees aren’t cared for? Ms. Capers: The bees could die off. Commissioner Johnson: How much time is needed? Mr. Reuters: Need to check on them at least every 10 days. It is a considerable commitment. If not taken care of, in the first year they will die. U of M wants to get them to survive on own. Commissioner Johnson: How do they survive the winter? Mr. Reuter: Can survive any kind of winter with some loss. Commissioner Schonning: Training would help the bee keeper prevent mites or diseases that could affect them. Commissioner Johnson: Are there different breeds? Page 4 Mr. Reuters: There are two types that are popular in this area. They are much like a dog breed. Either one does well in this area with their own differences. You wouldn’t have a heard of killer bees, they are not here and it is thought they can’t survive here. Chairperson Goodell: Any other questions? Commissioner Johnson: Would you be ok with a site visit? It might be interesting. Ms. Capers: Yes. Ms. Capers: A few things that don’t make sense. Why would you require mapping of the hive location? What would happen if you move them? Chairperson Goodell: Is the purpose to check the site for proper location? Ms. Capers: Are you going to replicate Brooklyn Park’s program? Chairperson Goodell: We are using theirs as a template just to start the process. Ms. Capers: Why are we considering licenses? Commissioner Oman: The site plan would help to prevent them from putting it in the wrong place. Commissioner Baskin: What would happen with a neighbor complaint? Commissioner Johnson: We would recommend a permit rather than a license. Ms. Caper: It went to council because a person was told to remove their hive. It is not in the ordinance. I reached out to the Council and some friends. Four people were told they can have it. Commissioner Johnson: Do bees attract other animals? Ms. Capers: Possibly mice, but there are devices that can keep them out. Chairperson Goodell: Fees? Brooklyn Park charges a $75 reservation. Would there be a cost to renew? Commissioner Baskin: It could impact neighbors and there should be some procedure to review. Every 2-3 years. Staff Liaison Anderson: Closest is a rental license. Commissioner Schonning: I am in favor of the training. Would like to have an only one-time fee, but still renew. Commissioner Amdahl: Would it be a one-time fee. Commissioner Oman: Inform new neighbors. What if they move, can they find out first? Commissioner Amdahl: If they are registered, they could. Page 5 Commissioners Baskin, Stokes and Amdahl: Are in support of renewals without annual fees. Chairperson Goodell: I could go either way with renewals. You previously had to get a fire permit and get permission for each fire. Commissioner Baskin: Bees are less common than fires. There will be some concerns overall people are not as concerned. Chairperson Goodell: Add registration and education; try to not have too many hoops. There is busy work from the city for renewal. Could see some value in keeping it similar to chickens. Commissioner Schonning: Annual renewal is a way to take responsibility for the bee hive. Commissioner Johnson: City is aware when there is a registration, and can explain that it is permitted. Commissioner Goodell: What are next steps? As it is almost 8. Should we summarize recommendations? The commission agreed that no site plan should be required. They should renew every 2 years and not be required to pay for renewals. Also, an inspection should only be required for the initial license. Commissioner Amdahl: Complaints should result in an inspection. Commissioner Schonning: It would help the neighbors to know that the city has inspected it. Commissioner Schonning: Recommend going to council after attorney reviews ordinance. Commissioner Amdahl and Commissioner and Schonning: Moves to recommend bringing ordinance to council after reviewed by city attorney. Motion carries. There was a motion by Commissioner Amdahl and seconded by Commissioner Schonning to approve a recommendation that an ordinance to allow for bee keeping be modified with the Housing Commissions comments, reviewed by the City Attorney, then brought to City Council for approval. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. TENANT PROTECTION: Staff Liaison Anderson provided a summary of the tenant protection ordinance. Council Liaison Butler: Why won’t Earle Brown Terrace been affected by this ordinance. Staff Liaison Anderson: The property was sold as vacant. The tenants that were asked to move were asked to move out by the original owns and the property was sold as vacant. Page 6 Mr. Hamza: The lease can be modified after the 90 days. Chairperson Goodell: All focused on change of ownership. When a person purchases a property they have to give a 90 day notice. Mr. Hamza: This helps people who have a month to month lease stay in the property. Chairperson Goodell: If a landlord comes in and wants to change application requirements with higher standers they would have to wait the 90 day period. Staff Liaison Anderson: Other cities have only experienced requiring the 90 days. No city has experienced a tenant receiving relocation benefits or not complying with the 90 day notice. Mr. Hamza: The landlord can make the decision to pay relocation or give the 90 days. Commissioner Amdahl: What happens if there are shorter months with the requirement in 36a. Staff Liaison Anderson: I will have the attorney review that section for clarification. Commissioner Amdahl: The word provide needs a D added to be provided. Commissioner Oman: Should require notice if changes are accruing within 30 days after the 90 day tenant protection period. Also, the city should provide the translation. Chairperson Goodell: I like the change to 80% that was recommended by Homeline. Commissioner Oman: Page 4 c. Affidavit. How do they provide the notice? Change requirement to not require city notice at the same time. Same day it too restrictive and wouldn’t allow them to notify the tenants by hand delivery and then mail the notice to the city. Staff Liaison Anderson: Next steps, have attorney make updates, send to Homeline. Chairperson Goodell: Entertain a motion. Commissioner Amdahl: Housing Commission recommends that the council approve the ordinance with modification. 2nd by Commissioner Baskin. Unanimous vote. There was a motion by Commissioner Amdahl and seconded by Commissioner Baskin to approve the motion recommending the Council adopt the Tenant Protection Ordinance with the recommended changes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Butler:  New banners are being installed in phases with a focus on hope, children, seniors, and Page 7 multiple people on banners.  There is a new snow emergency parking ordinance. Signs with flags and announced at meetings.  T21 was passed last week.  Eastbrook estates development in the area of 252 and 69th Avenue area was reviewed with 3 proposed developers. The council selected Centra homes. 35 3-4 bedrooms homes depending on market. The plan to start with 3 bedrooms and will be custom built. The thought was there is a need for step up housing in Brooklyn Center. Starting around $332,000.  The Chicken ordinance passed.  Minnesota housing finance agency approved a matching funds for the low interest fix up funds. The city is offering a home buyer workshop for free. It will be a 90 minute workshop.  Lux apartment renovation is underway, 91 units and they have had a lot of interest.  HOM Furniture will open mid-December.  Bank of America opening up in late November.  The city has tried to convince Target to stay; jobs are the biggest loss. CHAIRPERSONS REPORT Chairperson Goodell reported: Thanks everyone for attending. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Goodell: Should we meet in December? All commissioners agreed to cancel December meeting. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Amdahl and seconded by Commissioner Baskins to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m. __________________________________ Chairman 1/14/2019 1 Bee Keeping Ordinance – First Reading October 8, 2018 Review City Council Meeting, January 14, 2019 Meg Beekman, Community Development Director Background • May 2018 – Community Development presented the issue of Bee Keeping to City Council • City Code silent on keeping of bees • October 2018 – City Council discussed regulations for bee keeping • City Code interpreted to prohibit bee keeping • City Council directs Staff to proceed with drafting an ordinance • Directs the Housing Commission to review and provide a recommendation • October and November 2018 – Housing Commission discusses ordinance, reviews draft 2 1/14/2019 2 Bee Keeping Ordinance Overview • Up to 4 hives in a R1 or R2 (residential) zoning district • 2-year registration required • Inspection required with new registration • Certification/training required • Notice sent to properties within 200 feet • A registration can be denied with a documented bee allergy • Registration denials can be appealed to a hearing officer, then City Council 3 Bee Keeping Ordinance Overview • Colony Location • Rear yard • Minimum of 30 feet from adjacent dwellings or a fly away barrier is required • 5 feet from side or rear lot lines • Water source required • Bee keeping equipment shall be properly maintained • Equipment shall be removed if bee keeping is discontinued for more then 6 month. • No fee or inspection with registration renewal 4 1/14/2019 3 Budget Issues • Additional staff time required to administer the registration application process • It is not anticipated that extra staffing will be needed 5 Next Steps • A resolution adopting the registration fee will go with the 2nd reading • If approved, a public hearing and second reading will be scheduled for February 11, 2019 6 1/14/2019 4 Recommended Action • Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding bee keeping and calling for a public hearing and second reading to be held on February 11, 2019 7 E conomic Development Authority Council Chambers City Hall J anuary 14, 2019 AGE NDA 1.Call to Order The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full C ity Counc il packet, including E D A (E conomic Development Authority ), is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the podium. 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Consent Agenda The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority (E D A) and will been acted by one motion. There will be no separate disc ussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in whic h event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration I tems. a.Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve minutes from the December 10, 2018 meeting 4.Commission Consideration Items a.Resolution Electing Officers for the E conomic Development Authority in and for the City of B rooklyn Center - Approve Resolution Electing Officers for the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center b.Resolution Opting not to Waive L imited Tort L iability for 2019 - Motion to approve resolution opting not to waive limited tort liability for 2019 5.Adjournment ED A ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:Approval of Minutes Background: S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e 12/10/18 -1- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 10, 2018 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Regular Session called to order by President Tim Willson at 9:58 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL President Tim Willson and Commissioners Marquita Butler, April Graves, and Dan Ryan. Commissioner Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were Executive Director Curt Boganey, Deputy Executive Director Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Ryan moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, and the following consent item was approved: 3a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 3, 2018 – Special Meeting Motion passed unanimously. 4. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS 4a. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THOR LIVING In consideration of audience members in attendance, the agenda was reordered and Item 4b was considered prior to Item 4a. 4b. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CENTRA HOMES, LLC 12/10/18 -2- Community Development Director Meg Beekman introduced this item. She stated Centra Homes LLC is seeking a Preliminary Development Agreement for 35 single-family homes. She added the subdivision was returned to the Economic Development Authority (EDA). She noted two adjacent properties are proposed for partial acquisition as part of this project, and no contribution is required from the City or EDA. Ms. Beekman showed examples of Centra model homes in other developments. She added the models that will be available in Brooklyn Center have not been identified. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Development Agreement with Centra Homes LLC. Commissioner Ryan asked whether a PUD will be required due to smaller lot sizes. Ms. Beekman stated a PUD might be necessary but City Staff will find the easiest and best route to move forward with the subdivision. Ms. Beekman introduced Tate Baxter, Centra Land Team, and Dale Wills, Owner and President of Centra Homes. President Willson commend the Centra team for pursuing this property for their development. He added there have been many interested developers and potential projects, but the Centra proposal will utilize the property in the most fitting and appropriate fashion. Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-18 Approving Preliminary Development Agreement with Centra Homes, LLC. Motion passed unanimously. 4a. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-17 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THOR LIVING – continued Ms. Beekman introduced this item. She added THOR Living, LLC, is seeking a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) for a proposed four-story, 80-110-unit multi-family development that will be affordable to residents at 60-80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The developer intends to purchase the land from the EDA, and TIF funding is being requested for a funding gap of approximately $2.6 million. President Willson asked whether City Staff are aware of any environmental issues, as the demolition estimate seems high. Ms. Beekman stated the estimate includes the demolition of a home, and while the estimate may seem high, no soil borings have been completed. She noted the Sanctuary development did not have soil issues. 12/10/18 -3- President Willson asked whether there is a timeline for the development. Ms. Beekman stated the PDA will expire July 30, 2019, and no milestones have been established. She added financing is the biggest component at this point. President Willson asked whether ownership of the property will be retained by the EDA until all issues are resolved. Executive Director Boganey confirmed this. He added, due to the public subsidy component, a formal application and review by the City and EDA will be required. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff recommends approval of the request for a Preliminary Development Agreement with Thor Living, LLC. Commissioner Ryan moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-17 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THOR LIVING, LLC. Motion passed unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ryan moved and Commissioner Butler seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:30 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. ED A ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:R eggie Edwards, Deputy C ity C lerk F R O M:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:R esolution Elec ting O ffic ers for the Ec onomic Development Authority in and for the C ity of Brooklyn C enter Background: Minnesota S tatute 469-096 provides that n Ec onomic Development Authority s hall elect a pres ident, treasurer, and s ecretary on an annual bas is . EDA R es olution No. 87-06 also s tates in Artic le I I, S ec tion 7, that the pres ident, vic e-pres ident, s ecretary, treasurer, and assistant treas urer s hall be elec ted at the annual meeting of the Authority and s hall hold office for one year or until s uc cessors are elec ted and qualified. T he attac hed res olution elects such positions for the Economic Development Authority. Budget Issues: T here are no budget is s ues to cons ider. Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ELECTING OFFICERS FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 469.096 provides that an economic development authority shall elect a president, treasurer, and secretary on an annual basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Authority hereby elects the following officers to serve through December 31, 2019, or such later date as their successors are elected and qualified: President/Treasurer Mike Elliott Vice-President Assistant Treasurer Finance Director Secretary Community Development Director January 14, 2019 Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ED A ITEM MEMOR ANDUM DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Nathan R einhardt, F inance Director S UBJ EC T:R esolution O pting not to Waive Limited Tort Liability for 2019 Background: Each year the EDA must c hoose whether to waive tort liability limit protec tions of Minnesota S tatutes 466.04 as part of the ins urance policy renewal application process. M.S . 466.04 states that the maximum liability for a city for any claim is $500,000 with an aggregate maximum of $1,500,000 per incident. In pas t years the EDA has chos en not to waive the liability limits and the regular premium for ins urance has covered all claims. If the EDA were to waive the limits set by statute, it would be prudent to purchas e additional insuranc e coverage to cover possible higher awards in liability c laims . P remiums for s uc h insuranc e would be approximately $3,500 per year. Budget Issues: T he 2019 budget anticipates leaving the no waiver option in place for 2019 and has anticipated ins urance premiums bas ed on that no waiver option. Waiving the statutory limits would require that approximately $3,500 in additional premium c os ts be alloc ated for 2019 and in each succ eeding year. S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT LIABILITY FOR 2019 WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center has an option to waive its protection under the tort liability limitations contained in Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and WHEREAS, the statutory tort limit for 2019 is $500,000 per individual with an aggregate limit of $1,500,000 per incident; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center has not opted to waive its rights to limited tort liability in past years and is required to make a declaration of its intention every year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Authority does not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.02 for 2019. January 14, 2019 Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LIABILITY COVERAGE – WAIVER FORM Members who obtain liability coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the member’s effective date of coverage. Return completed form to your underwriter or email to pstech@lmc.org. The decision to waive or not waive the statutory tort limits must be made annually by the member’s governing body, in consultation with its attorney if necessary. Members who obtain liability coverage from LMCIT must decide whether to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision has the following effects: • If the member does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant could recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether the member purchases the optional LMCIT excess liability coverage. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability cove rage, a single claimant could recover up to $2,000,000 for a single occurrence (under the waive option, the tort cap liability limits are only waived to the extent of the member’s liability coverage limits, and the LMCIT per occurrence limit i s $2,000,000). The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $2,000,000, regardless of the number of claimants. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. LMCIT Member Name: __________________________________________________________________________ Check one: o The member DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. § 466.04. o The member WAIVES the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. § 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of member’s governing body meeting: __________________________________________________________ Signature: _______ Position: _______________ Council/E D A Work S ession City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 14, 2019 AGE NDA The City C ounc il requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full C ity Council pac ket is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the podium. AC T I V E D I S C US S IO N I T E M S 1.Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocation Discussion 2.B C L iquor S tore #1 Relocation 3.Council Retreat Discussion 4.State L egislative Priorities 5.Request to P rovide a City P hone to the Mayor P E ND I NG L I S T F O R F UT URE WO RK S E S S IO NS 1.Pending I tems Cities United Membership L ivable Wages Affordable Housing Recommendations On-Street P arking Conditions F irst S aturday Market discussion F uture Use of E D A P roperties Public Subsidy Policy discussion with E hlers Consulting - 1/28, 2/25, 3/11 MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Development Director F R O M:Jesse Anders on, Deputy Direc tor of C ommunity Development S UBJ EC T:C ommunity Development Bloc k G rant F unding Allocation Dis cus s ion Recommendation: - It is recommended that the C ity C ouncil consider providing direction to staff regarding the C ommunity D evelopment B lock G rant (C D B G ) funding allocations. Background: C ity S taff is s eeking direction from the C ity C ounc il on the allocation of 2019-2020 C ommunity Development Bloc k G rants (C DBG ) funds. C DBG funds are provided by the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help with community development activities that benefit low and moderate inc ome persons . T he funds are primarily intended for bric ks and mortar improvements, as oppos ed to public s ervic e ac tivities. Hennepin C ounty rec eives C DBG funds directly from HUD as part of a c onsolidated pool of funds, whic h is administered on behalf of partic ipating s uburban Hennepin C ounty c ommunities. Boomington, Eden P rairie, Minnetonka and P lymouth do not partic ipate in the c onsolidated pool and receive C DBG funds direc tly from HUD. Brooklyn C enter is cons idered a Direct Allocation C ity and is a sub-recipient of the funds through Hennepin C ounty. C DB G S tatutory and Adm inistrative Requirements T he F ederal Authorizing S tatute for the C DBG program requires that eac h funded C DBG activity meet one of three national objec tives : 1. Benefiting low inc ome persons 2. P reventing or eliminating s lums and/or blight 3. Meeting urgent community needs. T he F ederal Law als o spec ifies that eac h recipient receiving funds must ins ure at leas t 70 perc ent of the C DBG expenditures during the program year be us ed for activities benefiting low and/or very low inc ome persons . Each c ity mus t meet this requirement at the local level. As part of the adminis tration of the C DBG funds, Hennepin C ounty adopts a 5-year funding plan, which further defines the goals of the program and c larifies what ac tivities are eligible for funding. T hes e include: 1. P res erving and creating multifamily rental hous ing 2. P res erving and creating single-family home ownership 3. (P ublic S ervice funds ) S upporting agencies that provide public education and outreach services for job training, homelessnes s prevention, fair hous ing, financial literac y, emergency assistanc e, domes tic abus e s helter and c ouns eling, s enior centers, senior services, at-ris k youth c ouns eling, youth ac tivities and trans portation s ervic es 4. Improved c ommunity fac ilities and infrastruc ture 5. Neighborhood revitalization Because H ennepin C ounty is responsible for the monitoring and reporting of the C D B G funds, the C ounty oversees the use of funds within the consolidated pool. C ities that wish to diverge from the typical use of funds must seek permission from the County. O ne example of this is the C ity of B rooklyn C enter's C ode Enforcement P rogram, which is partially funded with C D B G dollars. I n 2009, the C ity was experiencing unprecedented foreclosure rates and vacant properties, resulting in an increase in neighborhood blight. T he C ity approached H ennepin C ounty and worked with them to design a program which would address the issue while meeting the requirements for the use of C D B G . P rior to 2018, c ities were allowed to allocate up to 15 percent of their C DBG funding to public services. W hile Brooklyn C enter regularly did so, other communities c hose not to. In addition, the reporting requirements for the funds are onerous, and the C ounty determined that it would be eas ier to pool the public s ervic e alloc ation and administer the dis tribution of thos e funds internally. Eac h city is now as ked to s end a representative to a committee, whic h reviews public s ervic e funding requests and makes a determination as a whole as to whic h public service organizations get funding and how muc h. Previous CDBG Allocation C D B G funding allocations run from J uly 1st-J une 30th each year. T he 2018-2019 C D B G funding round was allocated by the City Council in F ebruary 2018 and is set through June 30, 2019. T he funding was allocated as follows: 2018 C D B G Amount Allocation determination P rogram $150,000 $150,000 C ode Enforc ement and Neighborhood R evitalization 15%15%15% to public service funds required by Hennepin C ounty $86,300 R emaining T he remaining funds were alloc ated to the Hennep in C ounty Home rehab program. T he us e of the funds is limited and most c ities utilize C DBG to fund their hous ing rehab programs . T hes e are programs that provide deferred/forgivable loans to low inc ome home owners to make needed repairs and maintenance to their homes . F or c ommunities with an aging hous ing stock, this is the only s ourc e of funds available to as s is t with the maintenanc e and upkeep of homes . Brooklyn C enter has allocated roughly $85,000 annually to a hous ing rehab program. T he funds as s is t 5-6 hous eholds annually. T here is c urrently a waiting list of 23 people waiting for when additional funds become available. Brooklyn C enter has allocated $150,000 of funds towards supporting the C ode Enforc ement and Neighborhood R evitalization P rogram since 2009. W hile these funds do not c over the full c os t of the program, they s upplement the C ity's use of G eneral F und dollars. 2019-2020 C DB G Allocation We do not yet know the exact amount of C D B G allocation for the 2019-2020 cycle. T herefore, we have been advised by H ennepin C ounty to use the estimate of $257,550 for the purposes of determining the allocation of funds. H owever, this allocation amount could be adjusted once H U D provides final amounts. H ennepin C ounty receives the lump sum from H U D and determines the allocation among the participating cities based on a formula that takes into account population and need. City Public S ervices 15% S et-aside E stimated 2019 Direct Allocation Brooklyn Center $45,450 $257,550 Brooklyn P ark $69,600 $394,400 Edina $22,650 $128,350 Hopkins $23,700 $134,300 Maple Grove $28,500 $161,500 Minnetonka $23,250 $131,750 New Hope $16,350 $92,650 Richfield $33,900 $192,100 St. Louis Park $27,450 $155,550 $290,850 $1,648,150 F unding Allocation O ptions C ode Enforcement and Neighborhood R evitalization - T he C ity's foreclosure and vacant property rate continues to decline. T he C ode Enforc ement P rogram has been a highly effec tive tool to ens ure property maintenance and to fight neighborhood blight. T he Vac ant Building P rogram has been highly succ es s ful. S taff does not recommend reducing efforts towards c ode enforcement s trategies. T hat being s aid, it may be appropriate to reallocate some C DBG funds back towards their c ore purpos e, given the limited us e of the funds ; however, this would have a direct effec t on the G eneral F und. Due to the split c alendar of the funding cycle, the firs t half of 2019 has already been allocated. T his means that any adjustment to the 2019-2020 C DBG alloc ation in relation to code enforc ement would be split between two budget years. Housing R ehab P rogram - As C DBG funds are the only s ourc e of funding to maintain the C ity's exis ting s ingle family housing s toc k, one option would be to inc reas e the allocation of C DBG funds to this use. Down P ayment As s is tance - R ic hfield and G olden Valley are in the proc es s of allocating a portion of C DBG funds towards a down payment as s is tance program to s upport low and moderate income families to purchas e homes in the c ommunity. Brooklyn C enter c ould cons ider a s imilar program and pair it with the newly offered home owners hip classes. Direct affordable apartment as s is tance - Brooklyn P ark offers a program that s upports exis ting naturally occ urring affordable multi-family buildings with maintenanc e and rehab. O ne c hallenge with this program is that the c os t of rehabilitation is generally quite high, whic h limits the us e of the funds to one or two properties a year. S cattered s ite acquis ition/rehab - T he scattered site acquisition is done in N ew H ope. It is similar to the C ity's previous buy and replace program. I t allows for the purchase and renovation or demo of a blighted structure, which is then sold to a low/moderate income household. T he individual cost per unit is high, minimizing the impact of this program. Infras tructure improvements - T hese are physic al improvements to c ommunity or public fac ilities that are utilized by low and moderate income res idents . S ome c ities have us e C DBG funds to purchas e play ground equipment or make other phys ical improvements. O ne challenge with the use of C DBG funds in this manner is that it triggered F ederal F air Wage standards, whic h require a signific ant amount of reporting and paperwork, often making the s mall sc ale improvements more work than the value of the funding being us ed. Attachm ents C DBG F unding His tory Housing R ehab P rogram Information C ode Enforcement F ocus Areas R ichfield's Home Buyer P rogram Information Policy Issues: T he 2019 C DBG funding year is from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. T he approved 2019 budget includes $150,000 grant funds for C ode Enforc ement. O f that, $75,000 is alloc ated from 2018 C DBG funds and the other $75,000 was antic ipated to be funded by 2019 C DBG funds . T herefore, the 2019 funding would require a minimum of $75,00 allocated to C ode Enforc ement Activities . Does the city C ouncil want to continue with the same funding as previous year? Are there any other programs or areas that city s taff s hould researc h? Does the C ity C ounc il want staff to move forward with one or more of the options provided in the memo? S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity Timber bay 2018*$236,300 $236,300 * * * * $150,000 $86,300 2017 $255,616 $261,243 $8,710 $8,710 $8,710 $8,710 $150,000 $76,403 2016 $258,779 $259,455 $7,829 $7,829 $7,829 $7,829 $7,500 $150,000 $70,639 2015 $243,462 $258,779 $10,000 $10,000 $9,019 $7,500 $150,000 $72,260 2014 $239,249 $243,462 $12,500 $12,500 $7,387 $3,500 $150,000 $57,575 2013 $211,641 $239,249 $12,500 $12,500 $6,740 $150,000 $57,509 2012 $170,294 $211,641 $14,603 $10,476 $6,666 $150,000 $29,896 2011 $203,588 $170,294 $11,710 $8,364 $5,436 $125,474 $19,310 2010 $188,965 $203,588 $15,150 $9,410 $3,785 $164,623 $10,620 2009 $186,215 $188,965 $15,150 $9,285 $3,500 $150,000 $11,030 $158,283 $108,283 Amended by Council 2007 $193,749 NA $17,947 $11,115 $164,687 2006 $195,019 NA $18,135 $11,115 $165,769 2005 $199,764 NA $18,480 $11,340 $169,944 2004 $239,029 NA $22,000 $13,500 $203,529 2003 $234,516 NA $22,000 $13,000 $24,516 $175,000 *2018 CDBG allocation doesn't include 15% Public service fees as Henneping County Directly distributed the funds. CEAPFunding Year Initial Budget Adjusted H.O.M.E./ SCS 2008 $186,968 $186,215 $17,318 Home Line Avenues for Homeless Youth Neighborhood Stabilization/ Code Enforcement Initiatives Hennepin County Rehab Funds Shingle Creek Towers $10,614 $50,000 Amended by Council HENNEPIN COUNTY REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The owners of single-family, owner-occupied properties (including duplexes) may be able to receive housing rehabilitation assistance in the city of Brooklyn Center provided that funds are available and that the household meets eligibility requirements. The funds are available in the form of a deferred loan- no monthly payments – secured by a lien (in the form of a mortgage) against the property for a period of fifteen years. If the property is sold, or title conveyed or transferred, or if the property ceases to be the permanent residence of the borrower, the amount borrowed must be repaid. In certain cases, interest must also be paid. Households (including everyone living in the home) must have incomes which do not exceed 80% of area median as adjusted for family size (see Table 1 below). Households with incomes at or below 50% of area median are eligible for the interest free loan. Households with incomes between 51% and 80% of area median have loans which are subject to interest. Every year for the first ten years of the lien the amount owed is increased by 3% of the initial loan amount. For example, a household borrowing $10,000 would have the amount owed increased by $300 each year so, after ten years, the amount owed would be $13,000. Alternating financing is also available for the households between 51% and 80% of area median income. Household Size 50% of median income (interest free loans) 80% of area median income (subject to 3% annual simple interest) 1 person $33,050 $50,350 2 persons $37,750 $57,550 3 persons $42,450 $64,750 4 persons $47,150 $71,900 5 persons $50,950 $77,700 6 persons $54,700 $83,450 7 persons $58,500 $89,200 8 persons $62,250 $94,950 In order to be eligible for assistance, the following criteria must be met. • Funds have to be available • All required application materials must be submitted • Household income cannot exceed 80% of area median income • Household income must be adequate to support the monthly expenses of the household • Borrowers must be current on federal income tax payments or be able to demonstrate that they are current on an IRS approved payment schedule • Borrowers must be current on property tax statements or have entered into a Confession of Judgment with the County and be current on the payment schedule • Borrowers must have a reasonable credit history • Borrowers must own and occupy the home as their principal place of residence and must have a recordable interest in the property (be willing and able to sign the mortgage which will be recorded against the title) • Borrowers must accept a fifteen-year lien against title to their home • There should be enough equity in the property so that the CLTV (combined loan to value or the total of all liens and mortgages against the property – including that associated with this loan) does not exceed 95% of the EMV (estimated market value as it appears on the Property Tax Statement) • If the property is in a flood zone it must be properly insured The maximum loan $30,000 but the actual amount may be less to ensure that the CLTV does not exceed 95%. Funds are rarely, if ever, paid directly to the Borrower. Once a Borrower’s eligibility has been determined, staff from Hennepin County will arrange to schedule an appointment to carry out a property inspection to establish, with the help of the Borrower, the improvements and repairs that are eligible and necessary. If the house was built before 1978, an assessment of lead-based paint hazards must also be carried out by Hennepin County staff. If children under the age of six live in or frequently visit the property, Borrowers may also be eligible for a small loan which will contribute towards the cost of any work needed to deal with any lead-based paint hazards. A Scope of Work will be prepared and the homeowner will use the Scope to secure at least two bids for the proposed improvements. A contractor or contractors will be selected and contracts will be executed by the homeowner and the contractor(s). Whenever a payment is requested, for partial or final completion of work, the homeowner must sign a certificate authorizing payment and the work must be inspected and approved by all appropriate parties. The contractor is paid directly by Hennepin County. If you have any questions, please contact Linda Lee at linda.lee3@hennepin.us or 612-348-8955. Loan terms are subject to change. He n n e p i n C o u n t y R e h a b i l i t a t i o n L o a n P r o g r a m Se r v i c e A r e a s a n d S p e c i f i c T e r m s CI T Y Ma x i m u m Lo a n Am o u n t Co m b i n e d Lo a n - t o - V a l u e to N o t E x c e e d HO U S E H O L D I N C O M E B E L O W 50 % A M I HO U S E H O L D I N C O M E 51 % t o 8 0 % A M I Br o o k l y n P a r k $1 5 , 0 0 0 NO N E • 10 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • No i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t • 10 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • 3% s i m p l e i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t Mi n n e t o n k a $1 5 , 0 0 0 95 % • 10 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • No i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t • 10 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • 3% s i m p l e i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t Ho p k i n s $2 5 , 0 0 0 10 0 % • 15 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • No i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t • 15 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • 3% s i m p l e i n t e r e s t ( f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s ) • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t Br o o k l y n C e n t e r $3 0 , 0 0 0 95 % • 15 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • No i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t • 15 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • 3% s i m p l e i n t e r e s t ( f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s ) • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t Co n s o l i d a t e d P o o l C i t i e s * 95 % Ma p l e G r o v e 95 % Ne w H o p e 95 % St . L o u i s P a r k 95 % Ri c h f i e l d $3 0 , 0 0 0 0 95 % • 30 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • No i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t • 30 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • 3% s i m p l e i n t e r e s t ( f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s ) • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t *C o n s o l i d a t e d P o o r C i t i e s i n c l u d e : C h a m p l i n , C o r c o r an , C r y s t a l , D a y t o n , D e e p h a v e n , E x c e l s i o r , G o l d e n V al l e y , G r e e n f i e l d , G r e e n w o o d , H a n o v e r , H a s s a n , I n d e pe n d e n c e , L o n g L a k e , L o r e t t o , M a p l e P l a i n , Me d i c i n e L a k e , M e d i n a , M i n n e s t r i s t a , M o u n d , O r o n o , Os s e o , R o b b i n s d a l e , R o c k f o r d , R o g e r s , S t . A n t h o n y , St . B o n i f a c i u s , S h o r e w o o d , S p r i n g P a r k , T o n k a B a y , an d W a y z a t a . HO U S E H O L D I N C O M E B E L O W 5 0 % A M I AN D E M V I S B E L O W M H F A H O M E C O S T LI M I T O F $ 3 2 8 , 2 0 0 HO U S E H O L D I N C O M E 5 1 % t o 8 0 % A M I OR E M V I S A B O V E M H F A H O M E C O S T LI M I T O F $ 3 2 8 , 2 0 0 Ed i n a $3 0 , 0 0 0 0 95 % • 15 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • No i n t e r e s t • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t • 15 y e a r d e f e r r e d l o a n • 3% s i m p l e i n t e r e s t ( f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s ) • No m o n t h l y p a y m e n t OU T S T A N D I N G L O A N S : Br o o k l y n C e n t e r , C o n s o l i d a t e d P o o l C i t i e s , E d i n a , M a pl e G r o v e , M i n n e t o n k a , N e w H o p e , S t . L o u i s P a r k – T h e s e cities have a fi v e y e a r t e r m o n w h e n h o u s e h o l d s c a n b e e l i g i b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o g r a m a g a i n ( f i v e y e a r s f r o m d a t e o f r e p a y m e n t a g r e e m e n t ) . Ho p k i n s a n d M i n n e t o n k a – I n o r d e r t o b e e l i g i b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o g r a m , a h o u s e h o l d c a n n o t h a v e a n o u t s t a n d i n g l o a n f r o m t h e c i t y ’ s re h a b i l i t a t i o n l o a n p r o g r a m . Br o o k l y n P a r k – T h e r e i s a l i m i t o f o n e l o a n p e r l i fe t i m e . T h e r e i s a n e x c e p t i o n w h e n i t c o m e s t o r e p a ir s . 2014 Vacant Property Rate Legend City Border Areas Excluded (Non LowMod Income) Block Groups Percent of Vacant Properties 0% - 3.5% 3.6% - 100% Legend City Border Areas Excluded (Non LowMod Income) Block Groups Percent of Property Code Violations 0% - 15% 15.1% - 73% CDBG Code Enforcement Focus Area Determination2014 - City of Brooklyn Center 2014 Property Code Violation Rate CDBG Focus Areas Legend City Border Non Qualified Block Groups CDBG Focus Areas Areas Excluded (Non LowMod Income) Date Saved: 4/9/2015 3:10:11 PM Definition of a deteriorated neighborhood as required for CDBG fund allocation For a neighborhood (Census Block Group) to qualify as deteriorated, the neighborhood must meet any of the following scenarios: 1. A census block that had a property code violation rate higher than 15% in 2014. 2. A census block that has a vacant property rate higher than 3.5% in 2014. Definitions defined: Property Code Violation Rate: The percentage of violations in a census block group based of the number of ordinance violations recorded in the neighborhood during code enforcement inspections, including proactive and complaint inspections. Vacant Property Rate: The percentages of vacant properties in a census block group base on the number of properties that were known to be vacant in 2014. Contact a Richfield Housing Specialist for full guidelines and more information: 612-861-8778 or housespecialist@richfieldmn.gov RICHFIELD RENTERS: Get downpayment assistance up to $10,000 to buy your first home in Richfield! About the Loan  Up to $10,000 towards the purchase of a home  0% interest, no payments  Loan is forgiven after 10 years living in the home  Pro-rated repayment if sold within the first 10 years Household Size Total Household Income Limit 1 $50,350 2 $57,550 3 $64,750 4 $71,900 5 $77,700 6 $83,450 7 $89,200 Who Is Eligible  Current Richfield renters who have not owned a home in the past 3 years  Households must meet income limits  Have obtained mortgage pre-qualification from an approved lender  Maximum non-retirement assets of $25,000  Buyer will contribute at least $1,000 of their own funds towards the down payment  Must apply before executing a Purchase Agreement  Completion of Home Stretch First Time Home Buyers Course prior to closing 1/14/2019 1 Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocation October 8, 2018 Review City Council Worksession, January 14, 2019 Meg Beekman, Community Development Director CDBG Overview •City Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the allocation of  2019‐2020 funds  •CDBG funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD)  •The funds are for community development activities that benefit low and  moderate income persons  •The funds are primarily intended for  bricks and mortar improvements, as  opposed to public service activities  •Hennepin County receives CDBG funds directly from HUD  •Brooklyn Center is considered a Direct Allocation City and is a sub‐recipient  of the funds through Hennepin County. 2 1/14/2019 2 CDBG Statutory and Administrative Requirements •The Federal Statute for the CDBG program requires that each activity  meet one of three national objectives: •Benefiting low income persons •Preventing or eliminating slums and/or blight •Meeting urgent community needs •70 percent of the CDBG expenditures must be used for activities  benefiting low and/or very low income persons. 3 Hennepin County 5-Year Plan •Hennepin County adopts a 5‐year funding plan, which further defines  the goals of the program and eligible activities:  •Preserving and creating multifamily rental housing •Preserving and creating single‐family home ownership •(Public Service funds) Supporting agencies that provide public education and  outreach services for job training, homelessness prevention, fair housing,  financial literacy, emergency assistance, domestic abuse shelter and  counseling, senior centers, senior services, at‐risk youth counseling, youth  activities and transportation services •Improved community facilities and infrastructure •Neighborhood revitalization 4 1/14/2019 3 Background •Hennepin County administers CDBG funds on behalf of HUD •Cities that wish to diverge from the typical use of funds must seek  permission from the County  •Prior to 2018, cities were allowed to allocate up to 15 percent of their  CDBG funding to public services. •In 2018 the County determined that it would be easier to pool the  public service allocation and administer the distribution of those  funds internally •Each city is now asked to send a representative to a committee, which reviews  public service funding requests 5 Previous CDBG Allocations •CDBG funding allocations run from July 1st‐June 30th each year.  •The 2018‐2019 CDBG funding round was allocated by the City Council  in February 2018 and is set through June 30, 2019  6 2018 CDBG  Amount Allocation determination Program $150,000 $150,000 Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Revitalization 15%15% 15% to public service funds required by Hennepin County $86,300 Remaining The remaining funds were allocated to the Hennepin County Home rehab program. 1/14/2019 4 2019-2020 Allocation • Hennepin County estimate of $257,550 • This allocation amount adjusted once HUD provides final amounts • Hennepin County receives the lump sum from HUD and determines the allocation among the participating cities based on a formula that takes into account population and need 7 Funding Allocation Options • Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Revitalization • The City's foreclosure and vacant property rate continues to decline • The Code Enforcement Program has been a highly effective tool to ensure property maintenance and to fight neighborhood blight • Staff does not recommend reducing efforts towards code enforcement strategies • It may be appropriate to reallocate some CDBG funds back towards their core purpose, given the limited use of the funds; • This would have a direct effect on the General Fund. 8 1/14/2019 5 Funding Allocation Options •Housing Rehab Program  •CDBG funds are the only source of funding to maintain the single family  housing stock  •It may be helpful to increase the allocation of CDBG funds to this use •Down Payment  Assistance •Richfield and Golden Valley are in the process of allocating CDBG funds for  down payment assistance program •Brooklyn Center could consider a similar program and pair it with the newly  offered home ownership classes 9 Funding Allocation Options •Direct affordable apartment assistance – •Brooklyn Park offers a program that supports naturally occurring affordable  multi‐family buildings with maintenance and rehab.  •One challenge with this program is that the cost of rehabilitation is generally  quite high, which limits the use of the funds to one or two properties a year •Scattered site acquisition/rehab  •Similar to the City's previous buy and replace program  •It allows for the purchase and renovation or demo of a blighted structure,  which is then sold to a low/moderate income household •The individual cost per unit is high, minimizing the impact of this program 10 1/14/2019 6 Funding Allocation Options •Infrastructure improvements  •These are physical improvements to community or public facilities that are  utilized by low and moderate income residents •Some cities have used CDBG funds to purchase play ground equipment or  make other physical improvements  •One challenge is that it triggers Federal Fair Wage  standards, which require a  significant amount of reporting and paperwork, often making the small scale  improvements more work than the value of the funding 11 Policy Issues •The 2019 CDBG funding year is from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. •The approved 2019 budget includes $150,000 grant funds for Code  Enforcement. •Of that, $75,000 is allocated from 2018 CDBG funds and the other $75,000  was anticipated to be funded by 2019 CDBG funds. •Therefore, the 2019 funding would require a minimum of $75,00 allocated to  Code Enforcement Activities to maintain current GF 12 1/14/2019 7 Policy Issues •Does the City Council want to continue with the same funding as previous  year?   •Are there any other programs or areas that city staff should research? •Does the City Council want staff to move forward  with one or more of the  options provided in the memo? •The 2019 funding allocation must be approved by City Council Resolution   by the end of February. 13 MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:Nathan R einhardt, F inance Director S UBJ EC T:BC Liquor S tore #1 R eloc ation Recommendation: - It is recommended that the C ity C ouncil consider providing direction to staff regarding ownership of S tore #1. Background: In 2018, the C ity contrac ted with S heneho n C o mp any to complete a munic ipal liquo r sto re market analysis s tudy to as s is t the C ity in the determining of: 1. How can sales, market s hare and profit be optimized for our s tores? C onsiderations of c urrent effec tivenes s , new s ite lo catio ns, and exp ansions or upgrad ing of current fac ilities. 2. W hat are the optimal locations for our liquor stores ? How man liquor s tores would provide for optimal s ales /profitability? 3. S hould the C ity lease or own its liquor s tores? W hat opportunities exis t within the identified optimal areas for leasing and owning? At the S eptemb er 10, 2018 work s es s io n, Bob S tracho ta, P res id ent of S heneho n C ompany pres ented an overall s ummary and findings contained in their market s tudy, and reviewed optio ns fo r the loc ation of S tore #1 (5625 Xerxes Avenue North). T he leas e at S tore #1 end June of 2020. T he c ited benefits of owners hip dis cus s ed in the report inc lude: P rofit margin wo uld benefit fro m no lo nger p aying rent exp ens e, and BC Liquo r would acc umulate equity as debt is paid off Equity appreciation if the value of real estate inc reas es over time C omplete autono my o ver the layout o f the s to re, s ignage and brand ing and ability to maximize the economic and energy efficiency of the property Maintenanc e c os ts could be maintained and managed, and property taxes would not be applic able Elimination of perc entage-based rent (based on how succ es s ful the store was at generating sales) At that work s es s io n the cons ensus from the C ity C o uncil s upported mo ving fo rward with the ownership of a municipal liquor s tore in proximity to the c urrent location of S tore #1. S taff reviewed and inq uired ab o ut multiple lo catio ns and has d etermined a p referred loc ation at 1350 S hingle C reek C rossing. T he s ite would o ffer high vis ib ility and is near groc ery (C ub F o o d s & Walmart). T he s ite would inc lude p revious ly completed parking lot and s ite imp ro vements and a mo re s ec ure lo ad ing area. We are als o ho p eful that a municipal liquo r s tore wo uld provid e additio nal ec o nomic d evelopment momentum to this s ide of the S hingle C reek C rossing. S taff has negotiated with G atlin Develo p ment and reac hed a mutual unders tanding thro ugh a d raft letter of intent to p urc has e the property at a s ale p ric e of $680,000, which rep res ents a ten p ercent premium o n the 2018 as s es s ed value o f $617,200. Upon execution of the letter o f intent the C ity would have exclus ive negotiating rights for a p erio d of 30 days. T he terms would inc lude a shared p arking agreement, us e o f lo ad ing d o c k area and the right to us e panels on exis ting pylon signs. S taff has also c o ntrac ted with Architec tural C o ns ortium L L C , to provid e preliminary floor p lans and preliminary exterior elevations fo r the p ro p o s ed Brooklyn C enter Liq uor S tore. T he flo o r plan sho ws a c orner entranc e into the s tore, wider ais les with s horter s helfing, a large walk-in beer c ave, three offic e s paces and a s mall c onference/break room. T he 1.42 ac re site has s p ace to acc o mmo d ate a b uilding up to 13,600 s q uare feet. T he preliminary floor plan for the liquor s tore is 9,582 s quare feet, leaving 3,727 square feet available that would be owned b y the C ity of Brooklyn C enter. T his additional s quare footage c ould be us ed for future expans ion, lease or sale. T he p reliminary designs will be used as the basis for d etermining the estimated cons tructio n c o s t and budget. T he C ity has contrac ted with a third party, Des ign-Build C o nsulting to provid e a c os t estimate prior to bidding. Des ign-Bid C ons ulting has worked as a cons ultant o n various build ings in S hingle C reek C rossing and is familiar with the c o nstruc tion s tand ard s and costs o f c ons truc tio n o f tho s e p revious buildings . T he c os t es timate will be completed prior to January 28, 2019 C ity C ouncil meeting. S taff will provide a power point pres entation on the process, proposed s ite and cost, and the design of the s tore. Policy Issues: Does the C ity C o uncil s upport the rec o mmendatio n to mo ve fo rward with a letter of intent to p urc hase land from G atlin Development and preparation of bid documents for the c onstruc tion of a munic ipal liquor store? S trategic Priorities and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity Br o o k l y n C e n t e r Li q u o r S t o r e # 1 Oc t o b e r 8 , 2 0 1 8 Re v i e w Ci t y   C o u n c i l   W o r k   S e s s i o n ,   J a n u a r y   1 4 ,   2 0 1 9 Na t e   R e i n h a r d t ,   F i n a n c e   D i r e c t o r Ba c k g r o u n d • Oc t o b e r   8 ,   2 0 1 8 • St o r e   # 1   ( 5 6 2 5   X e r x e s   A v e n u e   S o u t h   n e a r   C u b   F o o d s )   l e a s e   e x p i r i ng  Ju n e   2 0 2 0 • Ci t y   r e q u e s t e d   s u b m i t t a l   o f   q u a l i f i c a t i o n s   o f   i n t e r e s t e d   f i r m s   to  co m p l e t e   a   m a r k e t   a n a l y s i s   f o r   i t s   m u n i c i p a l   l i q u o r   o p e r a t i o n s   (O c t o b e r   2 0 1 7 ) • Sh e n e h o n C o m p a n y   M a r k e t   S t u d y   W o r k   S e s s i o n   ( S e p t e m b e r   1 0 ,   20 1 8 ) • Co n s e n s u s   o f   t h e   C i t y   C o u n c i l   t o   m o v e   f o r w a r d   w i t h   p u r s u i n g   t h e  ownership  of   a   m u n i c i p a l   l i q u o r   s t o r e   i n   p r o x i m i t y   t o   t h e   c u r r e n t   l o c a t i o n  o f   S t o r e   # 1 2 Ma r k e t S t u d y R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s St o r e   # 1 • We l l   s i t u a t e d   a n d   s h o u l d   r e m a i n   p r o x i m a t e   t o   t h i s   s h o p p i n g   d e s t ination • Ci t y   s h o u l d   p u r c h a s e   l a n d   u p o n   w h i c h   a   c i t y ‐ o w n e d   s t o r e   c a n   b e   built • Ta r g e t e d   f o o t p r i n t   s h o u l d   b e   a t   l e a s t   7 , 5 0 0   s q u a r e   f e e t ,   b u t   i d ea l l y   w o u l d   be   8 , 5 0 0   t o   9 , 0 0 0   s q u a r e   f e e t • In v e n t o r y   p r o d u c t   m i x   s h o u l d   f o c u s   o n   f a s t e s t   t u r n i n g   p r o d u c t s   and those  th a t   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e   m o s t   r e v e n u e   ( d e c r e a s e   e m p h a s i s   o n   w i n e ) • Ti m e   i s   o f   t h e   e s s e n c e   f o r   m a k i n g   a   d e c i s i o n   o n   t h i s   s t o r e ,   g i v en   t i m e   re m a i n i n g   o n   t h e   l e a s e 3 Es t i m a t e d M a r k e t Re a c h 4 Be n e f i t s o f O w n e r s h i p • Pr o f i t   m a r g i n   w o u l d   b e n e f i t   f r o m   n o   l o n g e r   p a y i n g   r e n t   e x p e n s e ,  and BC  Li q u o r   w o u l d   a c c u m u l a t e   e q u i t y   a s   d e b t   i s   p a i d   o f f • Eq u i t y   a p p r e c i a t i o n   i f   t h e   v a l u e   o f   r e a l   e s t a t e   i n c r e a s e s   o v e r   ti m e • Co m p l e t e   a u t o n o m y   o v e r   t h e   l a y o u t   o f   t h e   s t o r e ,   s i g n a g e   a n d   b r a nding and  ab i l i t y   t o   m a x i m i z e   t h e   e c o n o m i c   a n d   e n e r g y   e f f i c i e n c y   o f   t h e   p roperty • Ma i n t e n a n c e   c o s t s   c o u l d   b e   m a i n t a i n e d   a n d   m a n a g e d ,   a n d   p r o p e r t y  taxes  wo u l d   n o t   b e   a p p l i c a b l e • El i m i n a t i o n   o f   p e r c e n t a g e ‐ b a s e d   r e n t   ( b a s e d   o n   h o w   s u c c e s s f u l   t he store was  at   g e n e r a t i n g   s a l e s ) 5 Sh i n g l e C r e e k Cr o s s i n g • Pa d   S i t e   o f   u p   t o   1 3 , 6 0 0   sq u a r e   f e e t • Pr o p o s e d   p u r c h a s e   p r i c e   o f   $6 8 0 , 0 0 0 • Ne a r   G r o c e r y   ( C u b   Fo o d s / W a l m a r t ) • Hi g h   V i s i b i l i t y / S i t e   L i n e s • Pa r k i n g • Ba c k   L o a d i n g   A r e a 6 7 Sh i n g l e C r e e k C r o s s i n g - A e r i a l 8 9 En t r a n c e / C h e c k - o u t A r e a • Ve s t i b u l e • 4  r e g i s t e r s   ( s i n g l e   l i n e ) • Ad d i t i o n a l   p r o d u c t   av a i l a b l e   b e h i n d   c a s h i e r s 10 Fl o o r S p a c e • Lo w e r   ( 4 f t   s h e l v i n g ) • Wi d e r / m o r e   a t t r a c t i v e   e n t r a n c e   a i s l e 11 Be e r C a v e • La r g e   w a l k ‐ i n   b e e r   c a v e • Pa l l e t s   i n   t h e   m i d d l e ,   s h e l v i n g   o n   th e   o u t s i d e 12 Ba c k O f f i c e / L o a d i n g S p a c e • Sm a l l   c o n f e r e n c e / b r e a k   r o o m   a r e a • Ba t h r o o m s • 3  o f f i c e   s p a c e s • Lo a d i n g   a r e a / b a c k   r o o m   d i r e c t l y   a d j a c e n t   t o   m a i n   fl o o r / b e e r   c o o l e r 13 Es t i m a t e d C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s • Oc t o b e r   8 ,   2 0 1 8 • Da v i d   H u n t ,   D e s i g n ‐ B u i l d   C o n s u l t i n g   ( 3 rd pa r t y   e s t i m a t e ) • Am o u n t s   &   b u d g e t   i n   p r o c e s s   o f   b e i n g   p r e p a r e d   ( w i l l   b e   c o m p l e t e d by  Ja n u a r y   2 4 th Me e t i n g ) 14 Fi n a n c i n g • Oc t o b e r   8 ,   2 0 1 8 • To t a l   E s t i m a t e d   C o s t   o f   $3 . 5   m i l l i o n * =  E s t i m a t e   L a n d   A c q u i s i t i o n   ($ 6 8 0 k ) +   C o n s t r u c t i o n   C o s t s   ($ 2 . 8 2   m i l l i o n * ) • BC   L i q u o r   C a s h   ‐ $ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0   ( a v a i l a b l e   $ 2 . 0 3   m i l l i o n ) • ED A   L e a s e   R e v e n u e   B o n d s   ‐ $ 2 . 6   m i l l i o n • 15 ‐ y e a r s   &   3 . 4 5 % • An n u a l   p a y m e n t s   o f   $ 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 • Eq u i v a l e n t   d e b t   p a y m e n t   t o   a n n u a l   l e a s e   p a y m e n t *E s t i m a t e d   a m o u n t   w i l l   b e   r e v i s e d   w h e n   c o n s u l t a n t ’ s   e s t i m a t e   i s  r e c e i v e d ,   t h e s e   f i g u r e s   a r e   be i n g   u s e d   f o r   i l l u s t r a t i o n   p u r p o s e s   o f   p o t e n t i a l   f i n a n c i n g   o p t io n s 15 Ne x t S t e p s Ci t y   C o u n c i l   M e e t i n g   J a n u a r y   2 4 ,   2 0 1 9 • Re s o l u t i o n   t o   e n t e r   i n t o   a   L e t t e r   o f   I n t e n t   ( L O I )   t o   p u r c h a s e   p ro p e r t y   f r o m   Ga t l i n   D e v e l o p m e n t   • Re s o l u t i o n   t o   P r e p a r e   B i d d i n g   D o c u m e n t s   f o r   t h e   C o n s t r u c t i o n   o f  a Municipal  Li q u o r   S t o r e 16 Qu e s t i o n s ? 17 MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager S UBJ EC T:C ounc il R etreat Dis cus s ion Recommendation: - It is recommended that the C ity C ouncil develop options related to the purpose(s) for holding a C ouncil retreat(s). Background: O ver the pas t 16 years the C ouncil has conduc ted a retreat primarily for the purpose of strategic planning and goal s etting. In 2002, the C ounc il strategies on how to addres s "smart growth", while in 2005, the C ounc il set out to c reate a new Brooklyn C enter "Downtown" blueprint. T he subject matter and s tructure of C ounc il retreats have varied over the years; however, setting as ide some time for the C ouncil members to gather and deliberate has been c onsistently valued. I N recent years the annual retreat cost has ranged from $7,000 to $10,000. I have attac hed s amples of agendas , work session items and summary proposals to provide a flavor of pas t retreat options. O n Monday, Dec ember 10, 2018 the C ounc il expres s ed interest in c onducting a counc il retreat(s) during the year of 2019. T he C ounc il direc ted s taff to develop a disc ussion item for the next C ounc il meeting. In preparation of the C ouncil's dis cus s ion on the issue of a retreat(s), staff developed three es s ential ques tions to be asked of the C ounc il during the dis cus s ion inc luding: 1. If the C ounc il were to meet for 12 to 16 hours over the year (2019) for purposes outs ide of the regular duties and tas ks of the C ouncil, what would be the "bes t" and "mos t" valuable us e of the time? 2. W hen would the C ouncil be willing to meet for a retreat(s)? 3. W hat are the financial and time cons traints that s taff s hould c onsider in developing retreat(s ) options? T he respons es to the questions above will inform the development of retreat design options that will be pres ented to the C ouncil in F ebruary. T he first ques tion in particular relates to the is s ue of "why" would the C ounc il meet in a retreat setting or for "what" purpose. T his is perhaps the mos t important question. It is the most important, becaus e the res ponse will dictate the struc ture or format for the retreat. S taff has developed a s hort list of "what's" or "why's " the C ouncil might conduc t a retreat(s) inc luding: Professional Development (i.e. Myers Briggs profile as s es s ment, finding ways that eac h partic ipant might develop and grow in their role with the C ity) Leadership Skills (i.e. the profile of quality leaders hip individually and c ollectively or S trengthfinders profile assessment) Team Building (i.e. unders tanding team dynamic s , exerc is es to build trust and group cohes ion) S trategic Direction Review (i.e. assessment of the current strategic priorities. R eviewing the new C ity electronic progres s measurement tool and reviewing the status c urrent initiatives ) Annual Council Goal Setting (i.e. developing a concens us on the future direc tion and outc omes for the community, c larifying expec tations, and roles for eac h s takeholder) S pecial Topics Discussion (i.e. poverty/wealth creation, homeles s /homeowners hip, or violence/prevention) S kill Building (i.e. conflict resolution, diversity & inc lusion, public speaking) Others T he listing of "others " from the list relate to ideas that C ouncil Members may have or want to add to the lis t. During the worksession the C ouncil will be asked to expand upon the lis t and then s elect the top 3 purposes to be c onsidered for the retreat(s ). Des ign of the retreat may vary in time or length of a session, the number of sessions , the us e of an external facilitator and/or the partic ipants in the retreat (i.e. involving department directors or not). Again, the respons es to the ques tions above by C ounc il will be part of the options presented to C ouncil in F ebruary. S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager S UBJ EC T:S tate Legislative P riorities Recommendation: - It is recommended that the C ity C ouncil consider discussing, modifying if necessary and indicating consensus on the Initial B rooklyn C enter S tate L egislative Agenda. It is understood that the C ity C ouncil may add or modify the list of legislative issues before the end of the 91st M innesota S tate L egislative S ession or no later than M ay 20, 2019 Background: T he C ity of Brooklyn C enter his toric ally prepares a legislative agend a to b e p res ented and ad voc ated fo r at the Minnesota S tate Legislature. T he most rec ent Minnes ota legislative s es s ion opened on Tuesday, January 8, 2019. Staff has developed a preliminary list (S ee Attachment) of state legislative issues to be considered by the C ouncil. T he issues were developed based upon: · Identific ation of unres olved 2018 Brooklyn C enter S tate Legislative Issues · R eview of the League of Minnes ota C ities s tate polic ies for 2019 · R eview of Metro C ities P olic ies · R eview of North Metro Mayors Work P lan · Identific ation of key issues by departments S taff lead ers hip identified issues that are critical to the succ es s of the C ity. S trategies for moving thes e is s ues forward may inc lude: · P artnering with North Metro Mayor ’s As s ociation · Meeting direc tly with MN S enators and R epres entatives that represent Brooklyn C enter · Dis s emination of a legislative literature piece to Legislators In addition to the priorities , that remaining from 2018 s taff is rec ommending three new policies. Transportation F unding for Hennepin C ounty using motor vehicle leas e sale tax. G roup Home and Housing for S ervices legislative s tudy. R ais e the tobac co purc hase age to 21. Policy Issues: Is there a cons ensus of the C ounc il to acc ep t the P reliminary 2019 Brooklyn C enter Legis lative Agenda, with the und ers tand ing that the C o uncil may ad d or modify the list o f legis lative is s ues before the end of the 90th Minnesota S tate Legislative, or before May 20, 2019? LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES For Legislative and Administrative Action Adopted November 15, 2018 2019 City Policies This document is available in the Legislative Action Center on the League’s website at www.lmc.org/policies The only comprehensive statewide advocacy agenda for all Minnesota cities Copyright © 2018 League of Minnesota Cities. All rights reserved. League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West • St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122 • Fax: (651) 281-1299 TDD: (651) 281-1290 • www.lmc.org League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page i Table of Contents LMC INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS STAFF ................. vi 2018 LMC POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ............................. v i i Improving Service Delivery ......................................................... vii Improving Local Economies........................................................ vii Human Resources & Data Practices ........................................ viii Improving Fiscal Futures ............................................................. ix LMC POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .................................... xi PURPOSE, PROCESS & PRINCIPLES OF CITY POLICIES ...... xii IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY .................................................. 1 SD- 1. Local Control ....................................................................................................................1 SD- 2. Unfunded Mandates .........................................................................................................1 SD- 3. Local Approval of Special Laws ......................................................................................1 SD- 4. Redesigning and Reinventing Government ......................................................................2 SD- 5. State Government Shutdowns ..........................................................................................3 SD- 6. Duration of Conservation Easements ...............................................................................3 SD- 7. Responsibility for Locating Private Underground Facilities ............................................4 SD- 8. Utility Relocation Under Design-Build Road Construction.............................................5 SD- 9. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards .................................................5 SD- 10. Fire Mutual Aid ..............................................................................................................6 SD- 11. Clarification of Joint Powers Relationships with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes.6 SD- 12. Ambulance Service Costs and Liability .........................................................................7 SD- 13. Fees for Service ..............................................................................................................8 SD- 14. Improving and Increasing Citizen Access to Information ..............................................8 SD- 15. Administrative Fines for Code Violations ......................................................................9 SD- 16. Contracting and Purchasing ..........................................................................................10 SD- 17. City Enterprise Operations ...........................................................................................11 SD- 18. Preservation of Order in City Council Meetings ..........................................................11 SD- 19. Constitutional Amendments .........................................................................................11 SD- 20. Initiative and Referendum ............................................................................................12 SD- 21. Civil Liability of Local Governments ..........................................................................12 SD- 22. Private Property Rights and Takings ............................................................................13 SD- 23. Organized Solid Waste Collection ...............................................................................14 SD- 24. Private Well Drilling ....................................................................................................15 SD- 25. Sustainable Development .............................................................................................15 SD- 26. Construction Codes ......................................................................................................17 League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page ii SD- 27. Building Officials .........................................................................................................18 SD- 28. Disability Access Requirements ...................................................................................18 SD- 29. Assaults on Code Inspectors and Officials ...................................................................19 SD- 30. Restrictions on Possession of Firearms ........................................................................20 SD- 31. Public Safety Communications ....................................................................................20 SD- 32. CriMNet ........................................................................................................................21 SD- 33. Pawn Shop Regulation and Use of the Automated Property System (APS) ................22 SD- 34. City Costs for Enforcing State and Local Laws ...........................................................23 SD- 35. Compensation and Reimbursement for Public Safety Services ...................................23 SD- 36. Administrative Traffic Citations ..................................................................................24 SD- 37. Driver Diversion Programs ..........................................................................................25 SD- 38. Distracted Driving ........................................................................................................26 SD- 39. Juveniles in Municipal Jails .........................................................................................26 SD- 40. Justice System Funding ................................................................................................26 SD- 41. 21st Century Policing ....................................................................................................27 SD- 42. Post-Incarceration Living Facilities .............................................................................28 SD- 43. Homeland Security Costs and Liability ........................................................................29 SD- 44. Cybersecurity ................................................................................................................29 SD- 45. Immigration Reform .....................................................................................................30 SD- 46. Legalization of Fireworks ............................................................................................30 SD- 47. Traffic Enforcement Cameras ......................................................................................31 SD- 48. Operation of Motorized Foot Scooters .........................................................................31 SD- 49. Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices and Electric Vehicles Operation While Impaired ......................................................................................................................32 SD- 50. Drug Courts ..................................................................................................................32 SD- 51. Methamphetamine ........................................................................................................33 SD- 52. Drug Paraphernalia .......................................................................................................33 SD- 53. Regulation of Massage Therapists ...............................................................................34 SD- 54. Lawful Gambling and Local Control ...........................................................................35 SD- 55. Liquor Liability Insurance Limits ................................................................................35 SD- 56. On-Sale Liquor or Wine Licenses to Cultural Centers .................................................36 SD- 57. Wine and Off-Sale Licenses .........................................................................................36 SD- 58. Youth Access to Alcohol and Tobacco ........................................................................36 SD- 59. Smoking Ban Ordinances .............................................................................................37 SD- 60. Regulation of Mobile Businesses .................................................................................37 SD- 61. Regulation of Party Buses and Boats-for-Hire .............................................................38 SD- 62. Environmental Protection .............................................................................................39 SD- 63. Impaired Waters ...........................................................................................................40 SD- 64. Municipal Public Water Supplies .................................................................................42 SD- 65. Municipal Electric Utilities ..........................................................................................43 SD- 66. State Support for Municipal Energy Policy Goals .......................................................44 SD- 67. Urban Forest Management Funding .............................................................................45 SD- 68. Election Issues ..............................................................................................................45 SD- 69. Administering Absentee Balloting ...............................................................................46 SD- 70. Felon Voting Rights .....................................................................................................47 SD- 71. Write-in Candidates in City Elections ..........................................................................48 League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page iii SD- 72. Ranked Choice Voting .................................................................................................48 SD- 73. Posting Campaign Finance Reports Online ..................................................................48 SD- 74. Electronic Rosters .........................................................................................................49 SD- 75. Election Judge Recruitment and Retention ..................................................................49 SD- 76. Mail Balloting ...............................................................................................................50 SD- 77. Modernizing Charter Amendment Process ..................................................................50 SD- 78. Presidential Primary .....................................................................................................51 IMPROVING LOCAL ECONOMIES ............................................... 52 LE- 1. Growth Management and Annexation ............................................................................52 LE- 2. Wildlife Management Areas ...........................................................................................53 LE- 3. Official State Mapping Responsibility ...........................................................................53 LE- 4. Electric Service Extension ..............................................................................................54 LE- 5. Statutory Approval Timelines ........................................................................................54 LE- 6. Maintenance of Retaining Walls Adjacent to Public Rights of Way .............................55 LE- 7. Development Disputes ....................................................................................................56 LE- 8. Foreclosure and Neighborhood Stabilization .................................................................56 LE- 9. Resources for Affordable Housing .................................................................................58 LE- 10. Energy Efficiency Improvement Requirements for Housing .......................................59 LE- 11. In-Home Day Care Facilities ........................................................................................61 LE- 12. Residential Programs ....................................................................................................61 LE- 13. Inclusionary Housing ....................................................................................................62 LE- 14. Community Land Trusts ...............................................................................................63 LE- 15. Telecommunications and Information Technology ......................................................63 LE- 16. Broadband .....................................................................................................................63 LE- 17. Competitive Cable Franchising Authority ....................................................................65 LE- 18. Right-of-Way Management ..........................................................................................66 LE- 19. Wireless Infrastructure and Equipment Siting ..............................................................67 LE- 20. County Economic Development Authorities ................................................................67 LE- 21. Local Appropriations to Economic Development Organizations .................................67 LE- 22. Workforce Readiness ....................................................................................................68 LE- 23. Business Development Programs .................................................................................68 LE- 24. Land Recycling and Redevelopment ............................................................................69 LE- 25. Development Authority Levy Limits ...........................................................................70 LE- 26. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) ....................................................................................70 LE- 27. Property Tax Abatement Authority ..............................................................................71 LE- 28. Opportunity Zones ........................................................................................................72 LE- 29. Revisions to the OSA Audit Function ..........................................................................73 LE- 30. OSA Time Limitations .................................................................................................73 LE- 31. Workforce Housing ......................................................................................................74 LE- 32. Development Along Transit Corridors .........................................................................75 LE- 33. Public Infrastructure Utilities .......................................................................................76 LE- 34. Adequate Funding for Transportation ..........................................................................77 LE- 35. Turnbacks of County and State Roads .........................................................................78 LE- 36. MnDOT Rights-of-Way Maintenance ..........................................................................78 LE- 37. Funding for Non-Municipal State Aid City Streets ......................................................79 League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page iv LE- 38. Authority to Allow Amenities in MnDOT Rights-of-Way ..........................................79 LE- 39. Complete Streets ...........................................................................................................80 LE- 40. Infrastructure Fees ........................................................................................................80 LE- 41. Safe Routes to School Grants Management .................................................................81 LE- 42. Railroads .......................................................................................................................81 LE- 43. Airport Planning and Funding ......................................................................................82 LE- 44. Airport Safety Zones ....................................................................................................83 HUMAN RESOURCES & DATA PRACTICES ............................... 85 HR- 1. Personnel Mandates and Limits on Local Control .........................................................85 HR- 2. Earned Sick and Safe Time ............................................................................................85 HR- 3. Pay Equity Compliance ..................................................................................................85 HR- 4. Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) ......................................................86 HR- 5. Implications of Janus v. AFSCME ................................................................................87 HR- 6. Public Employment Relations Board .............................................................................88 HR- 7. Payment of Arbitration Fees ..........................................................................................88 HR- 8. Essential Employees ......................................................................................................88 HR- 9. Re-employment Benefits ...............................................................................................89 HR- 10. Public Employee Defined Benefit Pension Plans ........................................................89 HR- 11. Retirement Work Incentives ........................................................................................92 HR- 12. State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance ..............................................................92 HR- 13. Health Care Insurance Programs .................................................................................93 HR- 14. Workers’ Compensation ..............................................................................................94 HR- 15. Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace ..............................................................95 HR- 16. Veterans Preference .....................................................................................................95 HR- 17. Military Leave Reimbursement ...................................................................................96 HR- 18. Background Checks .....................................................................................................97 HR- 19. Tele-Health Exams .......................................................................................................97 HR- 20. Critical Incident Stress Debriefing ...............................................................................97 Data Practices ........................................................................................ 98 DP- 1. Data Practices Compliance Costs ...................................................................................98 DP- 2. Records Retention Compliance Costs ............................................................................99 DP- 3. Updating the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ............................................100 DP- 4. Maintaining Government Data in Large Databases .....................................................101 DP- 5. Sharing of Student Data with Local Law Enforcement in Emergencies ......................101 DP- 6. Disclosure of Victim Data ............................................................................................102 DP- 7. Challenges to the Accuracy of Data .............................................................................102 DP- 8. Law Enforcement Technologies ...................................................................................103 DP- 9. Rideshare Data .............................................................................................................104 DP- 10. Open Meeting Law .....................................................................................................104 DP- 11. Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law ........................................................................105 Federal Employment Law .................................................................. 107 FED- 1. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) ..................................107 League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page v FED- 2. Flexible Spending Accounts ......................................................................................107 FED- 3. IRS Regulations on Death Benefits ...........................................................................107 FED- 4. Federal Public Safety Collective Bargaining Bill ......................................................108 FED- 5. Federal Health Care Reform ......................................................................................108 IMPROVING FISCAL FUTURES ................................................... 110 FF- 1. State-Local Fiscal Relations ..........................................................................................110 FF- 2. Economic Contributions by Cities ................................................................................111 FF- 3. State Budget Stability ....................................................................................................111 FF- 4. Funding Local Government Aid ...................................................................................112 FF- 5. State Charges for Administrative Services ...................................................................112 FF- 6. Reporting Requirements ...............................................................................................113 FF- 7. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs ............................................................................114 FF- 8. Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases ..................................................................114 FF- 9. Taxation of Electronic Commerce ................................................................................115 FF- 10. Local Lodging Taxes ..................................................................................................115 FF- 11. Taxation of Electric Generation Personal Property ....................................................116 FF- 12. Electric Generation Taxation Reform .........................................................................116 FF- 13. Support for Transitioning Communities .....................................................................117 FF- 14. Taxation of Municipal Bond Interest ..........................................................................118 FF- 15. Pollution Control Exemption ......................................................................................118 FF- 16. Local Elected Officials Authority to Establish Local Budgets ...................................119 FF- 17. Tax Hearing and Notification Process ........................................................................120 FF- 18. General Election Requirement for Ballot Questions ...................................................120 FF- 19. Municipal Liquor Store Continuation .........................................................................121 FF- 20. City Fund Balances .....................................................................................................121 FF- 21. Local Option Sales Tax and City Revenue Diversification ........................................121 FF- 22. City Franchise Authority .............................................................................................123 FF- 23. Utility Valuation Transition Aid .................................................................................123 FF- 24. State Assistance for Property Tax Refunds for State-Assessed Property ...................124 FF- 25. Transition for Property Acquired by Tax-Exempt Entities .........................................124 FF- 26. Payments for Services to Tax-Exempt Property .........................................................125 FF- 27. Fire Protection Districts ..............................................................................................125 FF- 28. Housing Improvement Areas and Special Service Districts Petitioned by Business ..125 FF- 29. Tax-Forfeited Properties and Local Special Assessments ..........................................126 FF- 30. Distribution of Proceeds from the Sale of Tax-Forfeit Property ................................127 FF- 31. State Hazard Mitigation and Response Support .........................................................128 FF- 32. Library Funding ..........................................................................................................128 FF- 33. Park and Library Land Tax Break ...............................................................................130 FF- 34. Increasing Safe School Levy Authority ......................................................................130 FF- 35. Equitable Funding of Community Education Services ...............................................130 FF- 36. Street Reconstruction Bond Approval ........................................................................131 FF- 37. Special Assessment Election Requirements ...............................................................131 LMC INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS STAFF Gary Carlson, Director (651) 281-1255 | gcarlson@lmc.org | @garyncarlson x Aid to cities x Economic Development x Pensions and retirement x Taxes x Public finance x Tax-increment financing (TIF) x Worker’s Compensation Anne Finn, Assistant Director (651) 281-1263 |afinn@lmc.org | @annemfinn x Broadband x Emergency management x Pre-emption x Public safety x State bonding x Transportation Craig Johnson, Representative (651) 281-1259 | cjohnson@lmc.org | @cajohnson_1 x Energy x Environment x Land use and annexation x Local/tribal relations x State bonding x Sustainable development x Wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater Irene Kao, Counsel (651) 281-1260 | ikao@lmc.org | @irenewkao x Civil liability x Building Code x Data Practices x Employment Law x Housing x Land use, zoning, and annexation x Telecommunications Daniel Lightfoot, Representative (651) 281-1295 | dlightfoot@lmc.org | @dflightfoot x Broadband x Cable/franchising x Housing x Telecommunications & information technology x Wireless infrastructure Ann Lindstrom, Representative (651) 281-1261 | alindstrom@lmc.org | @annRL x Elections x Federal Relations & Advocacy x Human resources x Pre-emption x Local/State Regulation & Licensing Page vL League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page vii 2018 LMC POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Improving Service Delivery Chair: Daniel Buchholtz, Administrator- Clerk-Treasurer, Spring Lake Park Vice Chair: Maria Carrillo Perez, Management Assistant, St. Louis Park Anita Archambeau, Community Development Director/Assistant City Administrator, Sartell Steve Barrows, Councilmember, Baxter Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Kelli Bourgeois, Human Resources Director / Asst. to the City Manager, Columbia Heights Jessica Brokaw, Deputy Director - Procurement, Contract Compliance & Business Development, Saint Paul Deb Calvert, Councilmember At Large, Minnetonka Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market Raeanne Danielowski, Mayor, Big Lake Amber Eisenschenk, Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Jeremiah Ellison, Councilmember, Minneapolis* Emmanuel Emukah, Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Bart Fischer, City Administrator, Oakdale Jacob Glass, Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Gary Hansen, Councilmember, Eagan Dana Hardie, Director of Administrative Services, Burnsville Blaine Hill, City Manager, Morris Laurie Hokkanen, Admin Services Director, Plymouth Fran Holmes, Councilmember, Arden Hills Steve Huser, Government Relations Specialist, Metro Cities Allyn Kuennen, Assistant City Administrator, Lakeville Andrea Lauer, Mayor, Royalton Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Peter Lindstrom, Mayor, Falcon Heights Debra Mangen, City Clerk, Edina Justin Markon, Management Assistant, Delano Noel Nix, Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Saint Paul Loren Olson, Government Relations, Minneapolis Aaron Parrish, Assistant City Administrator, Rochester Calvin Saari, Councilmember, Nashwauk Brian Scholin, Councilmember, Pine City Marty Schultz, City Administrator, Alexandria Cathy Sorensen, City Clerk, Blaine Kevin Staunton, Councilmember, Edina* Duane Willenbring, Mayor, Rockville ThaoMee Xiong, Director of IGR, Saint Paul Improving Local Economies Chair: Mary McComber, Mayor, Oak Park Heights* Vice Chair: George Tourville, Mayor, Inver Grove Heights Chad Adams, City Manager, Albert Lea Patrick Antonen, City Administrator, Circle Pines Anita Archambeau, Community Development Director/Assistant City Administrator, Sartell Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Mark Box, City Administrator, Deer River Michael Brethorst, City Administrator, Melrose Jason Brisson, Director of Community / Economic Development, Worthington Anne Buckvold, Councilmember, St. Joseph Connie Buesgens, Councilmember, Columbia Heights League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page viii Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator, Pine City Tony Chladek, City Administrator, Rushford Craig Clark, City Administrator, Austin Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market Emmanuel Emukah, Research Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Jenni Faulkner, Community Development Director, Burnsville Justin Femrite, City Engineer, Elk River Anthony Fernandez, Councilmember , West Saint Paul Nicole Fernholz, Director EDA, Alexandria Tom Fletcher, Councilmember, Greenwood Renae Fry, City Administrator, North Branch Jason Gadd, Councilmember, City of Hopkins Kathy George, City Administrator, Sandstone Jacob Glass, Research Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley Lisa Griebel, General Counsel-MPHA, Minneapolis Shannon Guernsey, Executive Director, Minnesota NAHRO Dan Gustafson, Councilmember, Burnsville CJ Holl, City Administrator, Wells Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk/Communications Director, Rochester Steve Huser, Government Relations Specialist, Metro Cities Rachel Johnson, Councilmember, Staples Rob Keehn, City Administrator, Lake City Kelcey Klemm, City Administrator, Detroit Lakes Alicia LaBeau, Councilmember, Paynesville Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Amanda Luepke, City Administrator, Clarkfield Mark Maloney, Director of Public Works, Shoreview Brent Mareck, City Manager, Carver* Justin Markon, Management Assistant, Delano Anne Mavity, Councilmember, St. Louis Park Mark Miazga, Councilmember, Falcon Heights Justin Miller, City Administrator, Lakeville* Noel Nix, Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Saint Paul Ross Olson, City Administrator, Sauk Rapids Loren Olson, Government Relations, Minneapolis Aaron Parrish, Assistant City Administrator, Rochester Jim Paulsen, Economic Development Administrator, Gilbert Margaret Rog, Councilmember, St. Louis Park Brian Scholin, Councilmember, Pine City Les Schultz, Councilmember, New Ulm Marty Schultz, City Administrator, Alexandria Peter Senarighi, Councilmember, Biwabik Jonathan Smith, Manager, Perham Robert Streetar, Community Development Director, Oakdale Kevin Toskey, Research Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities George Tourville, Mayor, Inver Grove Heights Charlie Vander Aarde, Government Relations Specialist, Metro Cities Clay Wilfahrt, City Administrator, Big Lake ThaoMee Xiong, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Saint Paul Human Resources & Data Practices Chair: Michael Rietz, City Administrator, Barnesville Vice Chair: Melissa Haas, Human Resources Manager, Apple Valley Julianne Bacon, City Management Assistant, Coon Rapids League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page ix Jessica Beise, City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator, Corcoran Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Kelli Bourgeois, Human Resources Director / Asst. to the City Manager, Columbia Heights Dick Brainerd, Councilmember, Mahtomedi Mark Casey, City Manager, St. Anthony* Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market Aisia Davis, Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Emmanuel Emukah, Research Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Julie Flaten, Administrative Services Director, Hastings Mike Funk, Assistant City Manager, Maplewood Jennifer Gabbard, Human Resources Manager, Shakopee Karissa Goers, Human Resources Administrator, Dakota County CDA Melissa Haas, Human Resources Manager, Apple Valley Corrine Heine, City Attorney, Minnetonka Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk/Communications Director, Rochester Steve Huser, Government Relations Specialist, Metro Cities Givonna Kone, Human Resources Manager, Plymouth Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Melissa Manderschied, City Attorney, Bloomington Ben Martig, City Administrator, Northfield Patricia Nauman, Executive Director, Metro Cities Noel Nix, Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Saint Paul Rebecca Olson, Assistant City Manager, Roseville Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Manager, Chanhassen Gene Ranieri, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Minneapolis Donna Robole, Human Resources Manager, Stillwater Deborah Schulz, Accountant, Newport Janet Shefchik, Human Resources Manager, Inver Grove Heights Andrea Turner, Director of Human Resources, Saint Paul Kevin Toskey, Research Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Deb Wegeleben, Finance Director, Big Lake Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director, Farmington ThaoMee Xiong, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Saint Paul Improving Fiscal Futures Chair: Josh Malchow, Clerk/Adminstrator, Slayton* Vice Chair: Chris Volkers, City Manager, Moorhead Patrick Antonen, City Administrator, Circle Pines Geralyn Barone, City Manager, Minnetonka Sasha Bergman, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Cornelius Boganey, City Manager, Brooklyn Center* Sarah Brown, Treasury Analyst, Saint Paul Connie Buesgens, Councilmember, Columbia Heights Tony Chladek, City Administrator, Rushford Bill Coughlin, Councilmember, Burnsville Bob Crawford, Mayor, Elko New Market Emmanuel Emukah, Research Staff Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Anthony Fernandez, Councilmember , West Saint Paul Jason Gadd, Councilmember, Hopkins Kelly Grinnell, Finance Director, Victoria Shannon Guernsey, Executive Director, Minnesota NAHRO Marshall Hallock, Administrative Business Director, Red Wing Dana Hardie, Director of Administrative Services, Burnsville League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page x Lisa Herbert, Finance Director, Rogers Connie Holmes, Mayor, Waverly Tom Lawell, City Administrator, Apple Valley Melissa Lesch, Senior Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis Dan Matejka, City Administrator, Goodview Madeline Mitchell, Budget Analyst, Saint Paul Steve Nasby, City Administrator, Windom Patricia Nauman, Executive Director, Metro Cities Noel Nix, Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Saint Paul Aaron Parrish, Assistant City Administrator, Rochester Michelle Pietrick, Finance Director, South St. Paul Gene Ranieri, Director Intergovernmental Relations, Minneapolis Aaron Reeves, City Administrator, Cloquet Paul Sandy, City Engineer, Brainerd Jonathan Smith, Manager, Perham Steve Stahmer, City Administrator, Rogers Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator, Ramsey Deb Wegeleben, Finance Director, Big Lake Jim Weikum, Mayor, Biwabik John Werner, Mayor, Rice Lake Brad Wiersum, Mayor, Minnetonka* ThaoMee Xiong, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Saint Paul Nancy Zaworski, Finance Director, Kasson *LMC Board of Director League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page xi LMC POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The City Policies document addresses more than 180 legislative issues that impact cities and serves as the foundation of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) advocacy efforts. City officials from across the state are recruited throughout the year to serve on one or more policy committees. In 2018, over 150 city officials participated in the policy committees. Policies are considered, discussed, and revised annually with considerable member input. Then, draft policies are published online for member comments before being considered for approval by the LMC Board of Directors. Guided by the City Policies, LMC member cities and staff actively advocate for city-friendly legislation. Below are some of the major events in the policy development process: January The Minnesota Legislature begins the first session of each two-year biennium in January of odd-numbered years. The 2019 Legislative Session is scheduled to begin on January 8, 2019. February The Legislature typically begins the second session of each biennium in February or March of even-numbered years. The February forecast will likely be released at the end of February or early March. March/April From March 10-13, the National League of Cities (NLC) hosts the Congressional City Conference in Washington, D.C. The League’s legislative conference will be held on February 20-21, 2019 near the State Capitol. May Under the Minnesota Constitution, the deadline to end any legislative session is the first Monday following the third Saturday in May (May 20, 2019). The governor may call special legislative sessions when necessary. June At the LMC Annual Conference (Duluth, June 26-28, 2019), members provide comments on City Policies throughout the conference and during the Legislative Update. July Policy committees hold their first of three meetings. The July meeting typically includes a review of the most recent legislative session, a preliminary discussion of emerging issues, and a review of member comments and board interim policies from the prior year. August Policy committees hold their second of three meetings to hear from subject-matter experts on existing and potential new policy topics. September Policy committees meet for a third time to finalize their work and make specific policy recommendations to the LMC Board of Directors. October Draft policies, as approved by the policy committees, are shared with members online during the comment period. Member input is also sought from city officials attending LMC Regional Meetings around the state each fall. November The LMC Board of Directors reviews member input, then considers and amends the policies for the following calendar year. The Board adopts policies on behalf of League members before the start of the next legislative session. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page xii PURPOSE, PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES OF CITY POLICIES The League of Minnesota Cities is dedicated to promoting excellence in local government through effective advocacy, expert analysis, and trusted guidance for all Minnesota cities. Each year, the League’s member cities identify common needs and goals, and the Board of Directors adopts policies designed to help cities overcome obstacles and reach those goals. These policies serve as the foundation of the League’s advocacy work on behalf of Minnesota cities. There are 853 cities in Minnesota, and 833 cities are members of the League of Minnesota Cities. Eleven townships and 63 special districts/other members are also League members. The League’s members include the smallest rural cities in Greater Minnesota and the largest cities in the urban core; they include suburban communities in the Metropolitan Area and regional centers in every corner of the state. Every member of the League has a voice in developing the following policies. Two core principles guide the development of City Policies and the actions of the League: 1. Local units of government must have sufficient authority and flexibility to meet the challenges of governing and providing citizens with public services. The Legislature must avoid imposing unfunded and underfunded mandates that erode local control and create liability and financial risk for city taxpayers. 2. The increasingly complex and costly requirements necessary for cities to provide services to their citizens require a strong partnership between federal, state, and local governments. This partnership should be based upon a shared vision for Minnesota and should allow individual communities to tailor that vision to the unique needs of their citizens. Because of the fluid nature of emerging issues, state and national politics, and current events, additional and alternative policies may be proposed after the policies are adopted by the Board of Directors. The League will make every effort to notify members of substantial changes or additions to policies after they are adopted by the Board of Directors. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 2019 City Policies League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 1 IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY SD-1. Local Control Issue: Cities are often laboratories for determining public policy approaches to the challenges that face citizens. Success in providing for the basic needs of a functional society is rooted in local control to determine how best to respond to the ever- changing needs of a citizenry. Because city government most directly impacts the lives of people, and representative democracy ensures that locally elected officials are held accountable for their decisions through local elections, local governments must have sufficient authority and flexibility to meet the challenges of governing and providing citizens with public services. Response: The increasingly complex and costly requirements necessary for cities to provide services to their citizens would benefit from a strong partnership between federal, state and local governments. This partnership should be based upon a shared vision for Minnesota and should allow individual communities to tailor that vision to the unique needs of their citizens without mandates and policy restrictions imposed by state and federal policy makers. The state should recognize that local governments, of all sizes, are often the first to identify problems and inventive solutions to solve them, and should encourage further innovation by increasing local control. The state should not enact initiatives that erode the fundamental principle of local control in cities across Minnesota. SD-2. Unfunded Mandates Issue: Federal and state mandated programs substitute the judgment of Congress, the president, the Minnesota Legislature, and the governor for local budget priorities. These mandates force cities to reduce funding for other basic services or to increase taxes and service charges. Response: a) Existing unfunded mandates should be reviewed and modified, or repealed where possible. b) No additional statewide mandates should be enacted unless full funding for the mandate is provided by the level of government imposing it or a permanent stable revenue source is established. c) Cities should not be forced to comply with unfunded mandates. d) Cities should be given the greatest flexibility possible in implementing mandates to ensure their cost is minimized. e) The legislative government redesign groups created in 2010 should consider the various unfunded mandates as they look at local government reform and redesign and make recommendations for the next session. SD-3. Local Approval of Special Laws Issue: The Minnesota Constitution prohibits special legislation except for certain special laws relating to local government. It provides that a special law must name the affected local unit of government and is effective only after approval by the local government unit, unless general state law provides otherwise. Under state statute, a special law is not effective unless approved by the affected local unit of government, except under limited circumstances. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 2 In recent years, the Legislature has occasionally enacted general laws that affect a single local unit of government. By enacting a general law with limited application, local approval is not required. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the constitutional requirement that a special law must be approved by the affected local unit of government before it can take effect. If a law is intended to affect or benefit a single local unit of government, the Legislature must follow the requirements for enacting a special law set forth in the Minnesota Constitution and in state statute. The League specifically opposes the Legislature's technique of bypassing the constitution by not naming the local government, but describing the local government in such narrow terms that it can only apply to one entity. SD-4. Redesigning and Reinventing Government Issue: Every level of government is redesigning, reinventing, and reevaluating its organizational structure and programs in response to financial realities and citizens’ needs and problems. Reforms, however, must be more than change for the sake of change to existing programs. It is imperative that government officials talk with citizens about how services are currently provided and how they can be best provided in the future. To be meaningful, redesign of governmental entities and services should: a) save money where feasible; b) deliver improved services; c) serve essential needs; and d) be equitably structured. Cities have and will continue to re-evaluate city programs and services, pursue the use of cooperative agreements, and consider organizational changes that provide greater government efficiency and result in better service to citizens. Citizen input and participation should be gathered and taken into account as decisions about service delivery are being made and implemented. All levels of government are encouraged to: a) Ensure that in redesigning, reinventing or reassigning government services and programs, the appropriate level of service to citizens is evaluated and citizen demands and expectations are adequately addressed. b) Engage as many citizens as possible, from diverse backgrounds and interests, to determine what services matter most to citizens and how the delivery of those services can be changed to increase efficiency and lower cost. c) Educate citizens about what services government delivers, how they are delivered, and how those services are funded. d) Engage in traditional and nontraditional partnerships to make service changes and do things in new ways. e) Identify and repeal programs or discontinue services that are no longer necessary, and evaluate which services can readily and fairly be provided by the private sector. Response: Federal, state, and county governments should: a) Promote and support local redesign efforts through incentives rather than mandates. b) Communicate and establish a process of negotiation before shifting responsibility for delivering services from one level of government to League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 3 another, or seeking to reduce service duplication. c) Utilize government entities with proven track records in redesign efforts. SD-5. State Government Shutdowns Issue: Twice in less than one decade, the state Legislature and governor failed to reach a global agreement on the state budget by the end of the fiscal biennium (June 30 of odd-numbered years). As a result of these impasses, portions of state government were shut down. The shutdowns, particularly the shutdown in 2011, created a range of challenges for cities, as well as for the state’s courts, residents, businesses, licensed professionals, state employees and others. For cities, the most pronounced challenges related to the shutdowns were as follows: a) Uncertainty about the timing and amount of aid and credit reimbursement payments and the distribution of local sales tax revenues. b) Inability of licensed city professionals such as peace officers and water treatment facility operators to renew licenses. c) Loss of access to critical information such as the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension database and state- mandated reports. d) The shutdown of transportation projects on the trunk highway and state aid system. e) Interruption of local economic development due to the state having sole authority to inspect, review and approve various plans and types of projects. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities urges the Legislature and governor to establish a procedure in state law to continue certain state government operations into a new biennium in the event that the governor and legislators cannot reach a budget agreement. Specifically, the Legislature and governor should modify state law to assure that the staff necessary to distribute state funds that are already encumbered or statutorily appropriated to local governments are distributed as statutorily scheduled, or in the absence of a statutory payment schedule, are released in a predictable and timely manner in the event of future shutdowns. The Legislature should also pass legislation that allows existing licenses of public employees to be continued during any future state government shutdown and should identify additional areas, such as electrical and plumbing inspection and plumbing plan review, where local governments could reasonably step in to handle the inspections, review, and approval necessary for local projects to move forward, and allows work on approved projects to continue in state rights-of-way. SD-6. Duration of Conservation Easements Issue: The Minnesota Marketable Title Act provides that any deed over 40 years old can be disregarded unless the holder of the interest re-records it. There is an exception for a person in possession of the property. A 2010 Minnesota Supreme Court decision said that the person in possession has to show that the possession has been visible enough to put a prudent person on notice of the interest, and that the possession has to be continuous. Sampair v. Village of Birchwood, 784 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 2010). This creates issues for cities that have conservation easements. It is difficult, if not impossible, to show actual use of the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 4 easement because conservation easements are passive easements, not active ones. As a result, cities will have to re-record the easements every 40 years in order to maintain them. This will result in a significant administrative burden and increase costs for local units of government due to staff time, legal fees, and recording fees. Additionally, Minn. Stat. § 500.20, entitled “Defeasible Estates,” provides in subd. 2a that private covenants, conditions, or restrictions that affect the title or use of real estate cease to be valid 30 years after the date of the instrument creating them and they may be disregarded. This provision was initially enacted in 1988. Minn. Stat. ch. 84C regarding conservation easements was enacted in 1985, and Minn. Stat. §§ 84.64-.65 regarding conservation restrictions were originally enacted in 1974. Because conservation easements and conservation restrictions are not listed among the restrictions that are not subject to Minn. Stat. § 500.20, subd. 2a, it is possible to conclude, by negative implication, that subd. 2a does apply to the conservation easements and conservation restrictions created by earlier enacted statues. This conclusion is inconsistent with the language in Minn. Stat. § 84C.02(b) that “a conservation easement is unlimited in duration unless the instrument creating it otherwise provides.” Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislation that excepts holders of conservation easements from re-recording the easements under the Minnesota Marketable Title Act and that clarifies that Minn. Stat. § 500.20, subd. 2a, does not apply to conservation easements and restrictions. SD-7. Responsibility for Locating Private Underground Facilities Issue: Cities are responsible for complying with state pipeline safety regulations that hold cities responsible for locating and marking private service laterals that connect in public rights-of-way to city sanitary and storm sewer, water, and district heating systems. The Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety (MNOPS) is proposing amendments to state pipeline and safety rules related to the definition of excavation and changes to mandatory damage reporting. Cities are concerned that damage to private service laterals within the public right-of- way continues due, in part, to construction methods during the replacement, repair and/or installation of underground utilities which cross city water and sewer services that are in the public rights-of-way. Trenchless excavation could potentially cause damage to underground service laterals and negatively impact the quality of utility services. Response: The League supports the changes to the definition of excavation presented by MNOPS at the 2012 Review of Minn. Stat. ch. 216D. Cities support the elimination of windbreaks, shelterbelts, and tree plantations from the definition of excavation, unless any of these activities disturbs the soil to a depth of 18 inches or more. The League supports exempting normal maintenance of roads and streets from the definition of excavation if the maintenance does not change the original grade and does not involve the road ditch by defining “original grade” as the grade at the date of issue of the first notice by the excavator. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 5 The League supports increasing MNOPS fines for violators of state pipeline safety requirements, bringing state penalties in line with federal penalties. The League opposes mandatory damage reporting and recommends a simple standardized form to encourage cities to voluntarily report damages. The League opposes requirements that would force cities to mark underground facilities of all sizes and materials. The League recognizes that trenchless excavation presents concerns to cities. Private property owners in the excavation area must receive advance notice of any trenchless or other excavation activities that could affect the quality of utility services. Notice must include at least one phone number for assistance in case of any service problems. Contractors must comply with city permits requiring that the drill head be visible when crossing any paint marks and moving through the pothole at the depth that the city allows for the installation. Cities must not be required to locate privately-owned water and sewer laterals and must not be held responsible for actions by excavators when the city determines not to locate such facilities. Excavators should be responsible for locating and protecting any private service lateral that is impacted by excavation activities conducted on private property beyond the public right-of-way. SD-8. Utility Relocation Under Design-Build Road Construction Issue: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has promoted legislation relating to the design-build construction process that would require private and public utilities to be responsible for utility relocation necessitated by road construction. The policy, if enacted, would create unanticipated costs for utilities owned and operated by cities. Municipally-owned utilities would be unreasonably held to the same standards as privately-owned utilities that exist in the public right-of-way. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports use of the design-build procedure, however, municipal utilities that exist in the public right-of-way should not be penalized under this process. Municipal utilities legitimately exist in the public right-of-way. When a MnDOT construction project requires the relocation of utilities, the cost of relocating municipal utilities should be shared equitably between MnDOT and affected municipal utilities. SD-9. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards Issue: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international association of individuals and trade and professional organizations that deals with fire and life safety. The NFPA has advocated legislation that would mandate two standards: NFPA 1710, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, and NFPA 1720, Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments. NFPA standards 1710 and 1720 define minimum response times, minimum fire company staffing levels, initial full alarm response levels, and extra alarm response levels. Although NFPA codes and standards League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 6 are voluntary, they are often adopted by local jurisdictions. Response: Levels of service delivery for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) have always been determined by local jurisdictions. If mandated, the NFPA standards would force local governments to shift dollars from fire prevention programs to fire suppression activities, potentially increasing the risk of fire and the danger to local firefighters. The League of Minnesota Cities opposes any attempt to mandate standards for minimum staffing levels of fire, specialized or EMS vehicles controlled by units of local government. The League also opposes any attempt to adopt a standard dictating or affecting the response time of any fire, specialized or EMS vehicle. SD-10. Fire Mutual Aid Issue: City and township fire departments regularly assist each other with firefighting and other response activities. This mutual aid is mostly authorized by individual written contracts with each city or township, which results in a patchwork of different agreements with different provisions. Often, each city attorney recommends different provisions. Following the Red River floods and the St. Peter tornados, emergency responders (including fire departments) met and helped pass a statute to govern mutual aid situations when there is an emergency declared by mayor or governor and no written agreements exist. The statute, Minn. Stat. § 12.331, provides a framework for how worker’s compensation, liability, property claims, insurance, and charges between the departments will be handled in mutual aid situations. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) developed a model mutual aid agreement that contains the same basic structure for liability as the statute. Many cities have entered into area-wide mutual aid agreements that are similar to the LMCIT model agreement. To provide uniformity, there should be a statute that is similar to Minn. Stat. § 12.331, to govern daily fire mutual aid situations that do not rise to the level of emergencies. Response: The Legislature should pass a statute to provide uniform provisions when fire departments assist each other. These provisions should include statutory definitions and clarifications for: a) Who is in command of the mutual aid scene. b) Who will cover the firefighters for worker's compensation. c) How liability and property claims will be handled. d) Who will pay for expendable supplies such as foam. e) When fire departments will charge each other for these services. f) The ability for fire departments to opt out by having a separate written agreement. SD-11. Clarification of Joint Powers Relationships with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes Issue: During the 2010 legislative session, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 was modified to allow federally recognized Indian tribes to participate in joint powers agreements with other governmental entities, including Minnesota cities. Indian tribes are extremely unique legal entities under federal law and international treaties. The new law was a broad brush authorization that did not address important issues that uniquely arise League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 7 when dealing with Indian tribes related to sovereignty, insurance liability and liability limits (commonly called “tort caps”). Previous laws, such as Minn. Stat. § 626.93 (authorizing tribes to act as law enforcement entities) explicitly addressed these concerns. Since the new law passed, interest has been expressed by public safety groups and individual cities in entering into joint powers agreements with federally recognized Indian tribes. However, legislative guidance is needed to address concerns related to sovereignty, insurance and liability limits for these agreements. Response: Include in Minn. Stat. § 471.59 (the joint powers statute) language substantially similar to Minn. Stat. § 626.93 that clarifies that Indian tribes entering into joint powers relationships agree to: a) Be subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees, and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties arising out of the joint powers agreement to the same extent as a municipality under Minn. Stat. ch. 466; and b) Notwithstanding Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 7, waive its sovereign immunity with respect to claims arising from liability under the joint powers. SD-12. Ambulance Service Costs and Liability Issue: The cost of providing ambulance care has increased steadily over the last several years due in part to changes in Medicare reimbursement. The federal Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 made two significant changes to ambulance billing. First, the act mandated that all ambulance services accept Medicare assignments as payment in full; that is, ambulance services cannot bill the Medicare patient for any unpaid balance beyond the Medicare payment. Second, the act mandated a uniform fee schedule that was implemented in April 2002. The new fee schedule significantly reduced reimbursement levels for many ambulance services. The BBA mandates are impacting the ability of some Minnesota ambulance service providers to adequately fund their operations. The loss of revenue due to Medicare reimbursement changes, coupled with higher insurance rates, is affecting the ability of many non-government-based ambulance service providers to deliver emergency care, particularly in rural Minnesota. All ambulance services and personnel are regulated by Minn. Stat. ch. 144E and must comply with the same licensing, training, and equipment-related requirements, regardless of ownership. However, non- government-based ambulance service providers are treated differently from government-based service providers in terms of exposure to liability. While government- based ambulance service providers have specific statutory caps on damages that limit their liability, non-government-based ambulance service providers are not protected by such caps. Consequently, non- government-based ambulance service providers have experienced inordinate growth in their insurance rates. Non-government-based ambulance service liability exposure is a concern for three reasons. First, municipalities that contract for ambulance service may be required to purchase excess liability coverage in order to protect non-government-based ambulance service providers against claims. Second, it may discourage mutual aid agreements between government- and non-government- based ambulance service providers. Finally, unlimited liability exposure threatens the existence of small, non-government-based rural ambulance providers, which could League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 8 leave large geographic areas without any ambulance service and undermine emergency response to mass casualty incidents. In addition, the liability exposure of medical directors associated with ambulance service is a concern. While medical directors of government-based ambulance services may arguably be covered by public official immunity, the law is unclear and should be clarified. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports federal legislation that would: a) Require Medicare to set ambulance payment rates at the “regional cost” of providing service; b) Require adequate reimbursement for ambulance providers; c) Establish a “prudent layperson” standard for the payment of emergency ambulance claims such that if a reasonable person believed an emergency medical problem existed when the ambulance was requested, Medicare would pay the claim; d) Make it easier for providers to file claims with Medicare by eliminating a processing system that often leads to the rejection of legitimate reimbursement claims. The League also urges the Legislature to extend the protection of the state and municipal Tort Claims Act to, at a minimum, licensed third parties that contract with a municipality to provide ambulance services. The League also supports extending the applicability of public official immunity to medical directors in the course of ambulance service activities. SD-13. Fees for Service Issue: While general services—such as permitting, inspections or enforcement—are typically funded out of a city’s general fund, cities often impose fees to cover the cost of providing certain services, permits, and licenses. The Legislature and interest groups often seek to mandate or preserve fee limitations for city services. Over the last several years, the Legislature has enacted a number of new laws designed to rigorously control local fee-setting authority. Examples of such mandates include placing limits on coin- operated amusement machine license fees, on-sale and off-sale liquor license fees, license fees for retailers selling fireworks, deputy registrar fees and planning and zoning fees. The state also requires cities that collect more than $5,000 in development-related fees each year to annually report all construction and development fees to the Department of Labor and Industry. Response: While the state has a role in providing a general, statewide funding policy, the state should not interfere in the decision-making functions performed by cities when setting city budgets to provide city services. The League of Minnesota Cities seeks authority for cities to charge fees that are reasonably related to the cost of providing the service, permit or license. The League opposes legislation that would require specific methods to pay for city services or would place caps on city fees. SD-14. Improving and Increasing Citizen Access to Information Issue: State law requires that cities publish certain types of information in a “qualified” newspaper designated by the city. While the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 9 requirements vary based on city population size, most cities must publish: ordinances before they can take effect; advertisements for bids; various financial reports; meeting and hearing notices; notices of elections; dates for filing affidavits of candidacy; and sample ballots. Collectively, these items are referred to as “official notices,” legal notices” and “public notices” in state statute. There are several requirements in statute for a newspaper to be a “qualified” or “official” newspaper for the city. For instance, there can only be one newspaper chosen for the city; it must be printed in English in a newspaper format; if it is a daily newspaper, it must be distributed at least five days each week; if not a daily paper, it may be distributed twice a month with respect to the publishing of government public notices; it must be circulated in the city which it purports to serve, and either have at least 400 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers or have at least 400 copies distributed without charge to local residents. As technology has evolved, citizens have become more accustomed to the instantaneous availability of online information. Because cities are committed to providing information to citizens and responding to this demand, they have invested heavily in their websites and in growing a robust online presence. They survey citizens about what method of communication is preferred and based on this, cities update, reform, evolve, and advance communication tools and often, they do so with limited means and resources to ensure citizens have access to information about their city. Because of the publishing mandate outlined in state statute, cities continue to publish in newspapers with limited resources while simultaneously providing information to citizens in the format they actually demand: online. These requirements originated in 1949 and to ensure the original intent of the law – providing citizens access to their local government – it is time to eliminate these outdated requirements and make communicating with citizens more efficient. Response: The Legislature should eliminate outdated and unnecessary publication requirements that are no longer relevant or representative of the technology we now have that has significantly increased access to government. Cities should have the authority to: a) Determine whether web publication should replace or supplement newspaper publication based on the unique needs of each community. b) Designate an appropriate publication that reaches the maximum number of citizens possible. c) Use alternative means of communication to fulfill statutory requirements such as city newsletters, cable television, video streaming, e- mail, blogs and city websites. d) Expand the use of summaries where information is technical or lengthy. e) Publish and provide public access to local codes of ordinances on a website accessible to the public and to post revisions and changes to city codes, resolutions, and rules on the city website, when feasible. SD-15. Administrative Fines for Code Violations Issue: Many statutory and home rule charter cities have implemented administrative enforcement programs for violations of local regulatory ordinances such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, and public nuisance ordinances. This use of administrative proceedings has kept League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 10 enforcement at the local level and reduced pressure on over-burdened district court systems. Cities using administrative enforcement processes experience a lower cost of enforcement and a quicker resolution to code violations. Minnesota statutes expressly provide the authority for all cities to utilize administrative enforcement of local codes and enforcement of liquor license and tobacco license violations. In 2009, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. ch. 169, the chapter of law pertaining to state traffic regulations, to allow cities and counties to issue administrative citations for certain minor traffic offenses. Since the passage of the 2009 administrative traffic citations law, some people have questioned whether administrative citations for non- traffic, liquor, and tobacco license code violations can be legally issued by statutory cities given that state law does not expressly provide authority on other code matters. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities continues to support the use of city administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, public nuisance ordinances, and regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher-level state traffic and criminal offenses. The Legislature should clarify that both statutory and home rules charter cities have the authority to issue administrative citations for code violations. Further, state statute should allow statutory and home rule charter cities to adjudicate administrative citations and to assess a lien on properties for unpaid administrative fines. SD-16. Contracting and Purchasing Issue: Minnesota statutes stipulate contracting and purchasing requirements for Minnesota cities. The law prescribes the process political subdivisions must use to make purchases and award contracts, and requires a competitive sealed bid procedure for contracts or purchases over $175,000. The intent of these statutory requirements is to provide taxpayers with the best value for their dollar and ensure integrity in the process. However, imposing these statutory requirements may, at times, result in political subdivisions paying more for goods and services than private entities under the same circumstances. The Legislature recognized the benefits associated with alternative purchasing methods when it amended municipal contracting law in 2004 to authorize the use of reverse auctions to purchase supplies, materials, and equipment. Similarly, other contracting procedures, including “design- build” and direct negotiation are proven alternatives to the formal bidding process. Authorizing broader use of these types of alternatives as the Legislature did in 2009 by authorizing a design-build pilot program, would enhance the ability of cities to make appropriate and fiscally responsible purchasing decisions. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports broader use of alternative contracting and purchasing methods that streamline the process and reduce local purchasing costs. Specifically, the League supports authorizing cities to use the design-build procedure and providing municipalities with broader authority, similar to that of private businesses, to directly negotiate contracts. The Legislature should establish a task force to review municipal contracting laws, and consider contracting and purchasing League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 11 reforms that give cities the flexibility to provide quality goods and services at the lowest cost to taxpayers. SD-17. City Enterprise Operations Issue: Historically, city enterprise operations have been created in response to community needs, lack of a private market, financial reporting requirements, state and federal mandates, to enforce state and local law, and to ensure a quality of life for the residents of a community. Establishing an enterprise operation allows a city to provide a desired service while maintaining financial control over service levels, costs, and public inputs. In some cases, enterprise operations produce general public benefits and may require public support to ensure a desired level of service at a reasonable cost. The benefits of an enterprise operation, therefore, should be evaluated not solely in terms of profitability but also on the service benefits to citizens of the community. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the local decisions made by cities to deliver services by establishing a city enterprise operation. The state should refrain from infringing on the ability of a city to provide services for its community. SD-18. Preservation of Order in City Council Meetings Issue: The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held a provision in Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(2), that prohibits disturbing public meetings was unconstitutionally broad. State v. Hensel, A15-0005 (Minn. 2017). Minn. Stat. § 412.191 gives statutory authority to city councils to preserve order and regulate procedure at their meetings. Cities rarely relied on the struck-down statute, but instead used other avenues to maintain order, such as issuing warnings and enforcing decorum rules. The struck-down statute served as a last resort when other options did not work. Response: The Legislature should ensure statutes adequately balance public participation with the ability to effectively manage public meetings and protect public safety. SD-19. Constitutional Amendments Issue: The Minnesota Constitution requires that a constitutional amendment be approved by a simple majority of both chambers of the Legislature at one session, and must then be ratified by a majority of all the voters voting at the election. Minnesota is one of 18 states that require a simple majority vote by legislators while 26 states require a higher threshold (17 states require a two-thirds majority and nine require a three-fifths majority). Since statehood, 215 proposed constitutional amendments have been voted on by the electorate; 120 of them have been approved (56%) and 95 rejected (44%). Cities provide a variety of critical and essential services to residents of Minnesota. Many public policy decisions at the state level impact cities and therefore, city officials depend on their state legislators to represent city interests at the Legislature. Additionally, unlike a statutory change, a constitutional amendment is difficult to modify or repeal once enacted. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities strongly supports our representational system of government and opposes laws and amendments that restrict local government. The Legislature is the appropriate governing body to consider and enact laws that reflect League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 12 statewide interests. Utilizing constitutional amendments to change public policy circumvents this process. Therefore, the League supports requiring a supermajority vote (two-thirds in support) by the Legislature to put an amendment on the ballot. SD-20. Initiative and Referendum Issue: The Legislature has frequently considered legislation to establish initiative and referendum by proposing to place a question for voter approval on the state general election ballot to amend the state constitution to allow voters to initiate or repeal state laws by submitting a petition which would cause such questions to be placed on the state general election ballot. Response: Cities strongly support our representational system of governance and, therefore, oppose amending the state constitution to provide for initiative and referendum. The Legislature is the appropriate governing body to consider and enact public policy that reflects statewide interests. The process of adopting state law based on good public policy is best upheld and supported by increasing the accountability and responsiveness of the legislative process, not by circumventing it. Presenting complex issues to voters in the guise of direct democracy further weakens representative government. A state constitutional amendment to provide for initiative and referendum subjects cities and their residents and taxpayers to the unintended outcomes of sometimes unwise attempts to place significant public policy decisions into the hands of special interests that can raise unlimited funds for the purpose of promoting their more narrow interests. SD-21. Civil Liability of Local Governments Issue: One of the barriers to the delivery of governmental services and programs is the exposure of local governments and their officials to civil damage claims. The state has acted to protect itself and its local governments by enacting exceptions and limitations to liability suits, and authorizing self-insurance and other mechanisms to deal with claims allowed by law. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) Creating an exception to municipal tort indemnification law, Minn. Stat. § 466.07, where an employee is defended and indemnified for claims under a contract of insurance carried by the employee. b) Extending the protection of the state and municipal Tort Claims Act to quasi-governmental entities when performing public services such as firefighting or licensed third-party ambulance providers that contract with a municipality to provide ambulance services. c) Existing constitutional safeguards for protecting public and private property interests without any statutory expansion of property rights. d) Clarifying and maintaining the applicability of municipal immunity in various areas, including, but not limited to, vicarious official immunity and park and recreational immunity, including the extension to entities providing a public service that have not traditionally been included within the immunity (e.g., state trails over municipal utility easements). League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 13 e) Preserving changes to Minnesota’s joint and several liability laws that require a municipality to be at least 50 percent at fault to be held responsible for 100 percent of a damage award. f) Reasonable limits on the amount and circumstances in which statutory attorney fees may be awarded in order to encourage settlement by all parties and decrease the likelihood of litigation. g) Preserving the essential structure of the local government tort liability caps in Minn. Stat. § 466.04. SD-22. Private Property Rights and Takings Issue: In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 decision, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, which upheld the ability of local governments to use eminent domain for economic development purposes, the Legislature enacted significant restrictions on cities’ use of eminent domain for economic development and redevelopment, and imposed new compensation and procedural requirements that apply to all condemnation actions, including those for traditional public uses such as roads, parks, and schools. Legislation to control cities’ abilities to perform regulatory acts—such as road rights-of-way condemnation, shooting range zoning, and amortization—has also received strong support from legislators. In addition, some legislators would like to authorize businesses to seek inverse condemnation when a governmental entity enters the business market and provides competing goods or services or limits the number of businesses that can operate privately or receive public contracts. Such legislative initiatives threaten a wide array of planning, environmental, historic preservation, and land conservation measures and undermine the fundamental responsibility of cities to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. In 2006, the Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. § 117.031, a statute related to attorney fees in the eminent domain process. The structure of the statute has resulted in attorney fee awards in eminent domain actions that have no relationship to the outcome of the case, serve only to encourage litigation, and shift limited public funding away from infrastructure projects. Response: State law must continue to provide cities with the tools needed to balance the rights of private property owners with the interests of the public. The League of Minnesota Cities opposes legislation that diminishes the ability of cities to act in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; that increases the cost of doing business for the public good; or that creates the possibility of additional lawsuits against cities. Specifically, the League opposes legislation that: a) Allows businesses to seek inverse condemnation when a city provides competing goods or services, or limits the number of private operators. b) Creates an automatic cause of action for damages any time a local regulatory action impacts the use or reduces the value of private property. The League supports legislation that: a) Authorizes cities to use eminent domain for economic development and redevelopment projects that advance a greater public good that benefits the community. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 14 b) Empowers local elected officials to determine whether a particular taking of property serves a public purpose. c) Creates incentives to encourage landowners to voluntarily sell their property to the public for development or redevelopment. d) More appropriately balances awards of attorney fees and costs of litigation with the outcome of the eminent domain proceeding. SD-23. Organized Solid Waste Collection Issue: “Organized collection” refers to a situation where a local unit of government, for any of a variety of reasons, decides that there is a public interest served by limiting the number of solid waste and recycling collection services available in the area. The reasons for implementing organized collection can vary, but include: a) Public safety concerns caused by the number and frequency of large trucks moving quickly through residential neighborhoods; b) Reducing wear on public infrastructure from heavy truck traffic; c) Improving the efficiency, cost and quality of garbage and recycling service provided to local residents; d) Cooperating with other local governments to best meet solid waste management and recycling objectives; e) Taking local steps to reduce energy impacts of public services; and f) Meeting the requirements of county ordinances and solid waste management plans as required under Minn. Stat. § 115.94. Organized collection is also encouraged in state solid waste policies as a means of improving the efficiency and coordination of solid waste management between local units of government. There are very specific and burdensome public procedures laid out in statute defining how such a decision must be publicly vetted and approved and over what time period that can occur. Despite all of these important and valid reasons for using organized collection, legislation has been discussed in several recent sessions that would allow special takings claims or contractual damages to be claimed by the solid waste industry if local governments make decisions that limit the number of companies that can collect garbage in a community in a manner that prevents a company currently operating in the community from continuing to do so through the implementation of organized collection. The unspecified and ongoing liability this change would create would have the effect of eliminating organized collection as a waste management option. This change would also create a virtual monopoly situation for any company awarded a solid waste contract under organized collection. The local unit of government would have to “buy out” a contractor in the future to change providers, even if their services were no longer the lowest bid. It also creates an incentive for bidders under organized collection to submit high bids, as they would be eligible for damages if they fail to win without having to provide service. Furthermore, this is a precedent that, if applied to other government purchasing and service contracting decisions, would clearly run counter to the public purpose of government providing services at the lowest feasible cost to taxpayers. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes efforts to apply inverse condemnation claims to city solid waste contracting decisions or to allow automatic contractual damage claims for League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 15 solid waste haulers that lose competitive bids in organized collection communities. Further, the League supports the current state policy that organized collection is a valuable tool as part of a comprehensive solid waste and recycling management program and recognizes the need to protect and preserve the authority of cities to adopt solid waste service contracts that protect public safety, the environment and public infrastructure. SD-24. Private Well Drilling Issue: The state has continued to place requirements on public water supply providers to add drinking water treatment and testing, to restrict the volume of water used, and to increase the cost of water use through fees and requirements on utility rate structures. As a result, many water users are choosing to obtain all or portions of their water from wells they place on their own property. This creates risks to public health and safety, can affect the surrounding environment, can affect city water supplies, and can leave city water utilities with massive losses of customer load and rate revenue. Providing clean, safe, cost-efficient drinking water to citizens is an essential service provided by 726 active municipal water systems. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) agrees that cities have the statutory authority to determine whether private wells are an appropriate use within their boundaries and that cities must protect the public water supplies from numerous private wells in city boundaries. Private wells in a city increase the risk of contaminating public water supplies and encourage over use of water. Cities have the authority to regulate and even prohibit private wells by local ordinance. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports current law that authorizes cities to protect public health and safety through local controls regulating or prohibiting private wells being placed within municipal water utility service boundaries and would oppose any changes to law to remove that authority. SD-25. Sustainable Development Issue: Minnesota cities spend significant time and resources planning for growth, development, and redevelopment that will best serve the future needs of their residents. Numerous factors are considered as part of that process, but an area of increasing interest involves concepts often categorized as “sustainable development.” Minn. Stat. § 4A.07, subd. 1(b), defines this term, as it pertains to local government, to mean “development that maintains or enhances economic opportunity and community well- being while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend. Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Cities play a key role in fostering sustainable development and other conservation practices due to their role in land use planning and zoning, stormwater and wastewater management, and local economic development. Local governments can take a lead on these issues by choosing to incorporate aspects of sustainable development into their local operations and facilities. They can also develop local policies and regulations that support and guide individual and private sustainability efforts. The ability of a city to affect these changes can, however, be restricted by policies and requirements imposed by other levels of government. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 16 Sustainable development initiatives can cover a wide range of issues, but share the benefit of lessening the future environmental impacts of communities on the land, air, and water in their area. Lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, wildlife habitat, shoreland areas, and other natural resources can be protected and enhanced in quality through local efforts. Energy efficiency and renewable energy production reduce the energy demands of a community and the environmental impacts of energy production. By more efficiently using public infrastructure and minimizing resource consumption, the costs to individuals, business, and government can be reduced. New and expanded business and job opportunities are also generated by the “green” products and services needed to implement sustainable development initiatives. The ideal result of well-planned sustainability, natural resources management, and conservation efforts is a city that is more efficient in the use of its resources and infrastructure, creates fewer environmental problems for future generations to address, and is a more desirable home for residents and businesses. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports federal, state, and regional efforts to promote sustainable development where the effectiveness of the proposed practice is supported by sound science, and as long as those efforts do not supersede the authority of local governments to determine their own policies regarding land use and related issues. Providing technical assistance and financial incentives, and streamlining regulations to encourage local governments and private property owners to engage in sustainable development practices, as well as assisting in education and information efforts for the building industry and the public, are the best means to generate successful results. These programs should focus on outcomes, allowing flexibility in how to best meet those outcomes in different locations and situations. The League opposes mandates that limit the authority of cities to determine what practices will best meet the needs of their communities. The League supports sustainable development efforts that meet the above criteria, including programs proposed in the following areas: a) Shifting public resources, services, investments, purchasing power, and procurement toward more economically and environmentally sustainable outcomes where those solutions are cost effective and appropriate. b) Using local land-use planning and zoning to protect and enhance limited natural resources, and reduce the impacts of growth and development on local infrastructure. c) Promoting efficient and renewable energy sources. d) Encouraging sustainable building design, construction, and operation strategies focused on integrated design, energy efficiency, water conservation, stormwater management, waste reduction, pollution prevention, indoor environmental quality, and the use of low-impact building materials and products. e) Supporting sustainable economic development, such as brownfield clean-up, on-site stormwater management, and sustainable business practices and technologies. f) Assisting and recognizing local governments that take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 17 increase energy efficiency by providing and identifying technical assistance, financial assistance, and best practices. SD-26. Construction Codes Issue: The State Building Code (SBC) is the statewide standard for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of the buildings and other structures of the type governed by the code. A building code provides many benefits, including uniformity of construction standards in the building industry, consistency in code interpretation and enforcement, and life- safety guidance. Beginning in 2018, the state will adopt a new version of the SBC every six years after a rulemaking process that allows for significant public input. The League supports adopting and amending the SBC through the rulemaking process, and opposes legislative changes to the building codes absent unusual or extraordinary circumstances. While all cities must enforce certain codes— such as the accessibility code and the bleacher safety code—enforcement of the SBC remains a local option for cities outside of the seven-county metropolitan area with fewer than 2,500 people that did not adopt the code before Jan. 1, 2008. Requiring enforcement of the SBC by smaller cities in Greater Minnesota is cost-prohibitive for many cities, and would result in an unfunded mandated. While a single set of coordinated codes helps provide consistency in code administration and enforcement, implementation of sustainable building design, construction, and operation does not readily integrate with the existing state building and energy code system. As a result, many cities are interested in adopting more aggressive local standards for sustainable development and conservation. Response: A statewide-enforced building code may have benefits, but requiring it would result in an unfunded mandate. Enforcing the State Building Code should remain a local option for the municipalities that have not already adopted the Code, unless the state fully funds the costs of enforcement and inspection services necessary to enforce a statewide building code. If the Legislature requires all cities to enforce the State Building Code, local governments must have the option to hire or select a building official of their choice and set the appropriate level of service—even if the state fully funds code enforcement activities. The state should collaborate with local governments, construction industry representatives, and other stakeholders to review the building and energy codes and consider modifications to encourage sustainable building design, construction, and operation. Specifically: a) For purposes of federal conformity, the state should adopt the International Energy Conservation Code as part of the State Building Code. b) The state should include an optional sustainable appendix to the State Building Code to allow cities to utilize appropriate parts of guidelines in their communities. c) The Legislature should authorize cities to experiment with more aggressive local standards for sustainable development and League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 18 conservation that will help inform the state code development process. SD-27. Building Officials Issue: There is a shortage of certified building officials in Minnesota. This shortage is particularly acute in Greater Minnesota where some cities have trouble finding certified building officials to perform inspections required by state law. Minnesota needs to hire a new generation of certified building officials, and must ensure that current officials have adequate training and opportunity to inspect a wide range of projects. The Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) has authority over state-licensed facilities and public buildings. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 326B.106, subd. 2, it must delegate authority to inspect projects on these buildings to a municipality if DLI determines that the municipality has adequate qualified local building officials to perform plan review or inspection of the projects. In 2014 the Legislature passed legislation requested by the League of Minnesota Cities and agreed to by DLI to provide more transparency and clarity to the delegation process. DLI, after consulting local governments and the League, implemented a new delegation procedure as required by statute. Although the new delegation process is a significant improvement, it can still be difficult for local building officials to achieve the experience necessary to be delegated full inspection authority. Response: Minnesota’s housing and construction industries depend on the work of local building officials, and cities that enforce the State Building Code endeavor to provide quality code administration and enforcement. The State must increase its efforts to train new building officials, and must provide sufficient education to help local officials efficiently administer and enforce construction regulations to protect the health and safety of citizens. These education efforts should include training to assist local building officials gain the requisite experience to qualify for delegation of state-licensed facilities and public buildings. The League urges the state to make surplus revenue from the building permit surcharge available to local governments to help defray the cost of complying with code official training and education requirements. SD-28. Disability Access Requirements Issue: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires that state and local governments provide people with disabilities equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities. Public entities are not required to take actions that would result in significant financial and administrative burdens, but they must modify policies, practices, and procedures to avoid discrimination unless they can demonstrate that doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity being provided. State and local governments are also required to follow specific standards when constructing new facilities and altering existing public buildings, and they must relocate programs or otherwise provide access in inaccessible older buildings. Under the ADA, public entities are not necessarily required to make each existing facility accessible. However, their programs—when viewed in their entirety—must be readily accessible to people with disabilities. A public entity may achieve program League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 19 accessibility through various methods. For example, a city may alter existing facilities, acquire or construct new facilities, relocate a service or program to an accessible facility, or provide services at other accessible sites. One district court judge has taken an expansive view of disability access requirements for public recreation facilities. The case involved a parent who sued a city due to difficulty viewing soccer and baseball games on certain city fields. The court, in interpreting the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), held that any public facility is a public service. Since the MHRA requires that every public service be accessible to disabled persons, the court concluded that each and every playing field and other public facility must be fully accessible. The court rejected the ADA’s limitations on modifications for physical access to older facilities, as well as the ADA’s “when viewed in its entirety” language for program access. The result is a more restrictive state standard for physical access to public facilities than required by the ADA and the State Building Code. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports changes to the MHRA that will make state accessibility standards compatible with the federal ADA for public services and facilities. The Legislature should clarify that a facility that is in compliance with Accessibility Code provisions of the State Building Code meets the physical access requirements of the MHRA. State law should also specify that accessibility requirements apply to public programs and services as a whole, rather than to each individual aspect of a public program or service. SD-29. Assaults on Code Inspectors and Officials Issue: Many city employees and contractors are required to enforce city codes and ordinances and state statutes and rules as part of their job duties. Code enforcement can involve denying a building permit, ordering a landlord to make repairs to rental properties, or fining property owners for failing to abate a nuisance. Because of the nature of their job, code inspectors and officials can be subjected to verbal assaults, threats, and physical violence. Minnesota law recognizes the need to protect certain employees whose jobs make it more likely that they will be the target of assaults by escalating assault charges from fifth to fourth degree for the assaults of peace officers, firefighters, school officials, and “public employees with mandated duties”. Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6, specifically defines “public employees with mandated duties” as agricultural inspectors, occupational safety and health inspectors, child protection workers, public health nurses, animal control officers, and probation or parole officers. An assault on one of these employees who is engaged in the performance of a duty mandated by law, court order, or ordinance, is a gross misdemeanor if the person knows the employee is engaged in the performance of official duties and inflicts demonstrable bodily harm. Under current law, an assault on a code inspector or official not enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6, while performing official business can only be charged as fifth degree assault, a misdemeanor, unless it results in substantial bodily harm. All code inspectors and officials should be afforded the same protections under Minnesota Statutes, and the legislature should amend the statute to League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 20 expand the employees covered by the statute. Response: The legislature should expand Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 6, to include code inspectors and officials, and should be defined broadly to include public employees and contractors whose jobs require them to enforce all administrative codes, rules, ordinances, and state laws. SD-30. Restrictions on Possession of Firearms Issue: The Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act, also known as “conceal-and- carry,” prohibits guns on most school properties but forbids other local units of government from prohibiting loaded firearms on their properties. The inconsistencies in the law’s treatment of different kinds of properties have caused confusion about how the law applies to multi-use facilities, such as municipal ice arenas used for school-sponsored programs. Further, the law gives private property owners the right to prohibit guns in their establishments, but prohibits landowners from restricting firearm possession by tenants and their guests without distinguishing between residential and commercial properties. This creates confusion for shopping malls and other retail properties with large common areas that are not occupied by the tenants but which the tenants and their customers must cross to access the tenant’s space. Finally, the Citizens Personal Protection Act does not explicitly state the type of firearm a permit holder may carry, and this has led to ambiguity regarding whether the law is limited to the right to carry a pistol-length firearm in public or if it allows for any firearm, including a military-style assault rifle. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities requests an amendment to the Citizens Personal Protection Act that would allow cities to prohibit firearms in city-owned buildings, facilities, and parks. The League supports clarifying the Act to state that a permit holder, under the terms of a permit, is allowed to carry a pistol-length firearm, but not a semiautomatic military-style assault weapon. The League is not seeking a repeal of the Citizens Personal Protection Act, nor authority to prohibit legal weapons in parking lots or on city streets and sidewalks. The League also supports efforts by commercial property owners to clarify that the prohibition on restricting possession by tenants and their guests applies only to residential rental property. SD-31. Public Safety Communications Issue: The state role in financing public safety communications has important cost implications for cities. The state needs to accept financial responsibility for use by cities of the state public safety radio communications backbone. Cities have struggled to pay high expenses to participate in the 800 MHz statewide public safety system. In previous state budgets, the Legislature turned to revenue sources upon which cities depend to cover costs to purchase and operate new communications technology and hardware for computer-aided dispatch, 911 public safety answering points (PSAPs), and interoperable radio communications equipment and subsystems in order to finance the build-out of the state backbone for the new system. As a result, fees were directed to fund revenue bond debt service used to complete the statewide build-out of the Allied Radio Matrix for Emergency Response (ARMER) and the cost of League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 21 operations of the state public safety radio communications backbone. At the federal level, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ordered reservation of 700 MHz wireless spectrum for a national interoperable broadband network to meet public safety communications needs. FirstNet was established in 2012 as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and is responsible for constructing a nationwide high-speed public safety wireless broadband network. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports continued and increased state financing of substantial local costs to participate in ARMER, including the acquisition and modernization of subscriber equipment, such as portable and mobile radios required for ARMER users. The League also opposes efforts to divert dedicated ARMER funds to the state’s general fund. The Legislature should fund regional cooperation and partnerships for effective delivery of 911 service, training and use of ARMER. The League also urges the FCC to continue to support availability of wireless spectrum necessary to expand channel capacity that allows local public safety agencies to meet future needs of cities and other local units of government. SD-32. CriMNet Issue: Public safety is compromised by the lack of centralized, complete, and accurate criminal history data about individuals, incidents, and cases. Without an integrated criminal justice information system, Minnesota cannot always hold serious criminals accountable for their crimes. CriMNet, Minnesota’s effort to integrate the 1,100 criminal justice information systems operated by agencies at all levels, will improve access to relevant criminal history data for public safety and criminal justice authorities. City officials are well aware of the complex issues raised by the utilization of electronic record keeping, data sharing, and access to records that identify data subjects. The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes that one of the challenges in making CriMNet operational is meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). More than 500 cities operate police departments. These departments vary dramatically in fiscal capacity, staffing resources, and technical expertise. Further, each municipal law enforcement agency has unique operating procedures, strengths, and needs based on the community it serves. The League knows CriMNet will have a significant impact on municipal police business practices, and could mean increased staffing needs, training, and equipment purchases. The League also recognizes that every agency must participate fully in CriMNet to make the system effective. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports efforts by the state to integrate criminal justice information systems. The League also supports cooperation between legislators, law enforcement and corrections agents, court officials, prosecutors, community groups, and businesses that build public support for CriMNet. If CriMNet is to be implemented statewide, the Legislature must consider the different capacities of municipalities to participate. The League requests that League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 22 the Legislature fund CriMNet planning and implementation at the local level. To ensure compliance with the MGDPA, comprehensive guidelines and operational practices should be implemented to safeguard access to and use of CriMNet data. However, data practices policies should not create new, unfunded mandates for local units of government or compromise CriMNet’s usefulness to the criminal justice system by creating unnecessary barriers. CriMNet stakeholders and participating users at the local level should be involved in crafting any legislation that would govern data practices requirements for CriMNet. SD-33. Pawn Shop Regulation and Use of the Automated Property System (APS) Issue: Minn. Stat. ch. 325J enables licensure for pawnbrokers and provides statewide minimum regulations for the pawn industry. Specifically, the law: a) Requires pawnbrokers to record all transactions, including details of the item pawned or sold, information about the customer and the cost of the transaction. b) Requires pawnbrokers to maintain records of all transactions for three years, and to make records available upon request to law enforcement agencies. c) Allows pawnbrokers to charge a maximum monthly interest rate of 3 percent of the principal amount loaned in a transaction, plus a reasonable fee for storage and services. The Automated Property System (APS) is a computerized system for tracking and monitoring pawn transactions. The purpose of the APS is to provide a tool to verify compliance with Minn. Stat. ch. 325J, to help identify and minimize illegal activity, to recover stolen property, and to provide a legitimate environment for consumers. Currently, almost 260 law enforcement agencies and over 190 stores in Minnesota and Wisconsin participate in the APS system as either a “query only” or “contributing” member. All access to and use of information in the APS system is governed by the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Only authorized users have access to the data. There is no public access to the data. Further, data that would reveal the identity of persons who are customers of a licensed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer are private data on individuals and only used for law enforcement purposes. Data describing the property in a regulated transaction with a licensed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer is public. Original pawn and secondhand transactions reported to the APS carry a $1 fee, regardless of the number of items involved. All subsequent updates or corrections to transactions are processed without charge. Contributing jurisdictions may also add regulatory costs to the transaction fee. The total transaction fee is then typically assessed by the dealer to the customer. A bill that would weaken Minn. Stat. ch. 325J and restrict the use of the APS has been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature. Specifically, the legislation would forbid law enforcement agents from acquiring customer information from pawn and secondhand shops until they have probable cause to do so, and would eliminate the authority of local units of government to more strictly regulate pawn and secondhand dealers. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 23 Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the authority of cities to regulate and license pawnbrokers, and opposes any legislation that would remove the authority of local governments to enact more restrictive regulations than currently exist in Minn. Stat. ch. 325J. The League supports the authority of cities to set licensing and transaction fees that enable them to recover their full regulatory and enforcement expenses. The League supports cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the pawn industry that enhances the ability to identify illegal activity and recover stolen property. Access to transaction information by law enforcement agencies is vital to accomplishing this goal. Further, the sharing of information through the use of the APS is a proactive way to prevent property and other crimes. SD-34. City Costs for Enforcing State and Local Laws Issue: Cities experience substantial costs enforcing state and local laws, particularly those related to traffic, controlled substances, and incarceration of prisoners. The current method in our criminal justice system of recovering costs for law enforcement and prosecution through fines is insufficient to meet the costs incurred by local governments. Further, when a violator requests relief from paying the full amount of the fine and surcharge, the courts have been more inclined to waive the fine than to reduce the surcharge. When this occurs, the local units of government recover no costs even though the city has incurred expenses. Response: The Legislature should review this issue and adopt measures that provide for complete reimbursement of the costs incurred by local governments in enforcing state and local laws. Solutions that should be considered include: a) Increasing fine amounts. b) Removing or modifying county and state surcharges that conflict with cost recovery principles. c) Requiring the courts to consider ordering restitution from the defendant to reimburse the costs of enforcement and prosecution as part of any sentence. d) Requiring that if a court reduces the amount paid by a violator, any reduction should be made from the surcharge and not the fine. SD-35. Compensation and Reimbursement for Public Safety Services Issue: Municipal public safety personnel often respond to emergencies involving non- residents. For example, municipal fire, police, and/or ambulance services may be dispatched to the scene of a traffic accident on an interstate highway involving victims from other cities or states. Although cities can bill for some public safety services they provide to non-residents, they have limited authority to collect on unpaid bills. Cities have also found that auto insurance policies vary when it comes to coverage for emergency responses. Insurance companies of those responsible for accidents sometimes deny payment for fire and ambulance service. Additionally, municipal public safety personnel commonly respond to emergencies that require the provision of medical services. The medical services provided by the city-employed first responders are part of a continuum of health care that is covered by insurance companies League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 24 when provided by paramedics and other medical care providers; however, insurance policies vary when it comes to coverage for municipally provided medical services. Insurance companies of those treated by municipal public safety personnel frequently deny payment for emergency medical services when they are billed by a municipality. Thus, when a municipal public safety agency provides first response medical assistance, they commonly do so at the expense of local property taxpayers. While emergency responses are legitimate functions of municipal public safety departments, the costs of providing services to non-residents should not be borne by the community’s taxpayers. Response: Cities should be compensated for emergency responses they provide to non-residents. They should have the authority to bill for the full cost of fire and ambulance services they provide, and to collect on unpaid bills. Further, while emergency medical responses are legitimate functions of municipal public safety departments, the costs of providing emergency medical care to individuals should be covered by insurance and not be borne exclusively by the community’s taxpayers. Cities should have the authority to bill for the full cost of first responder medical services they provide and to collect on unpaid bills. Insurance companies should be required to reimburse local governments for the full cost of providing these emergency medical services. Finally, auto and homeowners insurance policies should be required to insure for the cost of emergency responses. SD-36. Administrative Traffic Citations Issue: Cities have implemented administrative enforcement programs for violations of local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, and public nuisance ordinances. This use of administrative proceedings has kept enforcement at the local level and reduced pressure on over-burdened district court systems. The Legislature has repeatedly increased the fine surcharge on district court cases to generate revenues for the state’s general fund. The surcharge—the amount paid over and above the fine—is now $75 per citation. The growth in the surcharge has dramatically increased the cost of citations and has caused some to question whether the total of the fine and surcharge is disproportionate for minor matters. To lower the amount imposed on their residents, a number of cities have expanded their administrative programs to include some offenses traditionally heard in district court, such as minor traffic offenses. The increased state surcharges have not been used to assist local units of government with the growing costs of enforcement and prosecution. No matter which entity—city, county or state—issues a statutory citation, the violator pays between $115 and $127 for a minor speeding violation. Of this amount, the city receives between $13 and $20, and the county receives just slightly more. Further, when a violator requests relief from paying the full amount of the fine and surcharge, the courts have been more inclined to waive the fine than to reduce the surcharge. When this occurs, the local units of government recover no costs even though the city has incurred expenses. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 25 In 2009, the Legislature amended the statutes to allow administrative fines to be issued for certain minor traffic offenses. Cities report that the short list of offenses noted in that law change does not adequately address the needs of local law enforcement. Additional authority is necessary to allow law enforcement officers to implement an effective program to reduce violations. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities continues to support the use of city administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, public nuisance ordinances and regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher level state traffic and criminal offenses. Cities should have the authority to issue administrative citations for low- level moving and equipment violations that: 1) would otherwise result in warnings, and 2) occur on roadways where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour or less. If state leaders choose not to expand the list of administrative traffic offenses, they should then change the distribution of statutory violation fine revenues so that cities are adequately compensated for enforcement and prosecution costs. SD-37. Driver Diversion Programs Issue: Traffic offense educational diversion programs provide an alternative to first-time petty misdemeanor traffic citations. The programs require an accused violator to enroll in an educational class and successfully complete the class. The courses focus on safe driving and have been shown to change behavior and reduce recidivism, particularly among young drivers. In 2014, a judge in Wabasha County ruled that local units of government do not have the authority to implement minor traffic offense educations diversion programs that are not explicitly authorized by law. Given this ruling, many longstanding, successful diversion programs for first-time offenders were suspended. In 2008, the legislature approved a pilot diversion program. It authorizes designated cities and counties to implement diversion programs that meet specific criteria. The commissioner of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has the authority to approve or deny participation in the pilot program by individual cities and counties, and each person participating in the program must first be granted approval by the DPS. Due to limited DPS staffing for this function, approval for some participants has been delayed. The pilot program is scheduled to expire December 31, 2019. The session law governing the pilot requires that all sums owed must be paid within 18 months. Most people entering the driver diversion program have outstanding fines and fees in the amount of between $1,000 and $4,000. There are some individuals, however, who owe as much as $8,000 to $10,000 in fines and fees. The short timeline for making all payments causes a number of otherwise cooperative participants to drop out of the program. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities also supports making the driver diversion pilot program for individuals with suspended or revoked licenses permanent and available to all jurisdictions, and a broadening of the eligibility criteria for participation in the program so it is available to more people. The law should allow jurisdictions to consider the financial circumstances of individuals and provide authority to extend the timeline for collecting outstanding fines and fees beyond the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 26 current 18 months. Lastly, the DPS must provide adequate staffing for processing driver diversion program applications to avoid delays in approval for participation. SD-38. Distracted Driving Issue: Distracted driving is when a driver engages in any activity that might take attention away from the primary task of driving. According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, one in four motor vehicle crashes is related to distracted driving. Distracted driving was a contributing factor in 175 fatal crashes from 2011 to 2013 in Minnesota and resulted in 191 deaths. More than half of those crashes occurred in rural areas. Those fatalities cost the state more than $269 million. A University of Utah study finds that the relative risk of being in a traffic accident while using a cell phone is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. Under existing law, it is illegal for a driver to read, compose, or send text messages and emails, or access the Internet using a wireless device, while the vehicle is in motion or a part of traffic (including while stopped in traffic or at a semaphore). Cell phone use is totally banned for school bus drivers. Cell phone use is also totally banned for teen drivers during their permit and provisional license stages. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes any changes to Minnesota Statutes that would weaken distracted driving laws. The League supports state funding for distracted driving enforcement and education and also supports strengthening distracted driving laws. SD-39. Juveniles in Municipal Jails Issue: Municipal jails have long served as holding facilities for suspects who are being questioned and/or booked, and for those awaiting transfer to a county jail or juvenile detention facility. In 2012, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) issued a reinterpretation of an existing law to say that, “[W]here counties have secure juvenile correctional facilities…juveniles are not allowed to be held in jail and/or municipal lock-ups for any length of time.” This interpretation is in conflict with a provision in Minn. Stat. § 260B.181, subd. 4, which provides that juveniles can be held in a licensed juvenile facility for up to six hours. Many municipal jails, including those in counties where juvenile detention facilities exist, have been operating under the six-hour holding law. Managers of municipal jails indicate the reinterpretation of the law is contrary to common practice and presents significant challenges for municipal law enforcement personnel. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports a statutory clarification that would allow juveniles to be held for questioning and booking in licensed jail facilities for up to six hours, regardless of whether the county has a juvenile detention facility. SD-40. Justice System Funding Issue: Over the past several years, Minnesota’s justice system has operated under consecutive budget shortfalls. Public service windows are closed part of each week in many courthouses. Delays in case filings, hearings and dispositions are building throughout the state as staff and judges struggle to keep up with caseloads. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 27 The budget shortfalls limit the ability of the courts to process cases pertaining to shoplifting, trespassing, worthless checks, traffic and ordinance violations, juvenile truancy, runaways and underage drinking, consumer credit disputes, property-related and small civil claims, and many other cases. Timely processing of these cases is critical to keeping communities safe and to preserving the quality of life residents expect. The State Court Administrator has advocated for statutory changes that have resulted in efficiencies and cost savings while preserving core services. These changes involve consolidating services where practicable and using technology to reduce costs. They include centralized payable processing, use of e-citations and restructuring of state mandated programs. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports a statement by former Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson that calls for “an adequately funded, functioning justice system that resolves disputes promptly in order to ensure the rule of law, protect public safety and individual rights and promote a civil society.” The League supports the use of technology to reduce costs and preserve services. The League opposes any changes that would decriminalize local ordinances, petty misdemeanors or misdemeanor offenses, or that would make prosecution of these crimes more difficult. SD-41. 21st Century Policing Issue: Published in May 2015, the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing Report makes multiple recommendations aimed at helping law enforcement agencies and communities strengthen trust and collaboration, while reducing crime by implementing the next phase of community-focused policing. The report contains recommendations related to six key areas of law enforcement: 1. Building Trust and Legitimacy; 2. Policy and Oversight; 3. Technology and Social Media; 4. Community Policing and Crime Reduction; 5. Training and Education; and 6. Officer Safety and Wellness. Many Minnesota communities have embraced 21st Century Policing concepts, and municipal police departments throughout the state have adopted policies that align with 21st Century Policing principles. In Minnesota, police chiefs have indicated strong interest in securing additional training in 21st Century Policing practices for officers. Demand for training has increased in recent years, and in 2017 the Legislature responded by increasing continuing education requirements for officers, expanding the scope of this training to include more community policing, and by providing $6 million per year over the next 4 years for training reimbursement provided by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board. This funding is not permanent and sunsets after the four-year period. The POST Board is funded through a special revenue account from a surcharge on criminal and traffic convictions. However, a significant amount of the special revenues collected are diverted to the state’s general fund and are not made available for training reimbursement, and the amount of the surcharge paid to the state has been League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 28 declining. There is also growing concern about the impact of the surcharge on residents, particularly those of low income and persons of color, and concern about funding policy training based on ticket revenue. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes the need for communities and law enforcement agencies to strengthen trust and collaboration, while continuing to reduce crime. The League supports the recommendations of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Report. To that end, the League supports: a) POST Board model policies that align with the recommendations of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Report; b) POST Board approved training opportunities for new recruits and in- service peace officers that include but are not limited to procedural justice, bias/implicit bias and cultural awareness, de-escalation, and crisis intervention training; c) Increased state and federal funding for peace officer training that includes reimbursement for tuition, travel, time and backfilling the shifts of officers who are out for training; d) Permanent funding for police training that is not based on criminal and traffic ticket revenue; e) State and federal funding for peace officer safety and wellness initiatives; and f) Authority and grants for municipal police departments to deploy technologies such as dash cameras and police body worn cameras that enhance both criminal justice and officer accountability. SD-42. Post-Incarceration Living Facilities Issue: Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in post-incarceration living facilities have appropriate care and supervision, and that neighborhoods are not disproportionately impacted by high concentrations of these types of facilities. Under current law, operators of certain post-incarceration living facilities are not required to notify cities when they intend to purchase single family housing for these purposes. Cities do not have authority to regulate the locations of post-incarceration living facilities. Cities have reasonable concerns about the safety of facility residents and neighborhoods, particularly in cases of public safety. Cities also have an interest in preserving a balance in residential neighborhoods between this type of facilities and other uses. It is in the best interest of providers to inform and work with cities before opening a facility in order to educate providers of community standards and expectations. Response: Cities should have statutory authority to require agencies, as well as licensed and registered providers, that operate post-incarceration living facilities to notify the city before properties are operated. Cities should be provided with the necessary contact information once licensed or registered. Providers applying to operate post-incarceration living facilities should be required to contact the city to be informed of applicable local regulations. The Legislature should also require establishment of non- concentration standards for post- incarceration living facilities to prevent clustering. Finally, licensing or registering authorities must be responsible for removing any residents incapable of living in such an environment, League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 29 particularly if they become a danger to themselves or others. SD-43. Homeland Security Costs and Liability Issue: The federal government’s response to terrorism has resulted in new responsibilities for local governments in a number of areas. For example, shortly after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government tapped local law enforcement personnel to provide security and perform screening at our nation’s airports. These new responsibilities increase cities’ liability exposure and result in higher local costs for public safety services. In addition, local governments are expected to continue emergency planning and capacity building efforts, provide additional training and equipment for first responders, and improve emergency response coordination and communication. As partners in protecting our country from terrorism, the federal government must: 1) provide greater direct financial support for our first responders; 2) maintain funding for general pre- and post-disaster emergency management programs; 3) ensure a coordinated and effective national emergency response system; and 4) address issues of cyber security that threaten public safety, services, and infrastructure. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities recommends that when the federal government requires or contracts for cities’ assistance in meeting federal homeland security responsibilities, the federal government should fully cover the costs, including the risk of liability arising from these activities. The League supports greater federal funding to prepare, train, and equip our first responders. The League also supports changes in the federal funding process to ensure Department of Homeland Security funds move quickly to the local level. Furthermore, the League supports the allocation of state resources to provide training and technical assistance to local governments related to the prevention and control of cyber security risks to critical infrastructure. SD-44. Cybersecurity Issue: Dating back to at least 2012, U.S. Defense Secretaries have warned that the United States are increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers who could dismantle the nation’s power grid, transportation system, financial networks and government. On a state level, the original Minnesota broadband task force issued unanimous joint recommendations regarding cybersecurity in their 2009 report. The more recent iteration of the Broadband Task Force also issued a 2016 recommendation to establish a legislative cybersecurity commission to share information, monitor workforce issues, and support and strengthen infrastructure. These recommendations to address cybersecurity issues in the state have not been implemented, which creates an absence of a secure and safe forum for state and local officials and policymakers to share information and assess the necessary tools and capabilities needed to protect their systems. The problem is serious. The Minnesota Judicial Branch, state agencies, cities, and school districts were all affected by cyberattacks in 2017. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports state action to identify and strengthen state and local capabilities. The League supports the inclusion of funding to evaluate state government cyber vulnerabilities, single points of failure, and fixes, and, based on League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 30 those findings, create an ability for municipal governments to apply for grant funding or assistance to help conduct the same evaluation. SD-45. Immigration Reform Issue: The United States and the State of Minnesota have long traditions of welcoming immigrants. Immigrants strengthen Minnesota by contributing to the state’s economy, enhancing cultural resources, and participating in efforts to build strong communities. According to the National League of Cities, roughly 35 percent of undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for 10 years or more. Approximately 1.6 million undocumented immigrants are children, and another 3.1 million children in the United States have at least one undocumented parent. These families are forced to live “underground” and are unable to get drivers’ licenses or car insurance in most states. In addition, they are unlikely to obtain health insurance and are afraid to report crimes to local law enforcement. Since immigrants are barred from most federal public assistance, the burden of providing social services, education, and health care falls to state and local governments that are increasingly feeling the financial impact of both legal and illegal immigrants living in their communities. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities, together with the National League of Cities, urges Congress to move quickly to enact and enforce effective immigration laws. Federal and state governments must not transfer responsibility for enforcing U.S. immigration laws to local personnel, including police officers, firefighters, educators, health professionals, and social service employees. Finally, federal and state governments must not prohibit local units of government from implementing policies aimed at fostering positive relationships between local government officials, including law enforcement personnel, and immigrant communities. SD-46. Legalization of Fireworks Issue: In 2002, the state enacted a law allowing the sale and use of non-aerial, non- explosive consumer fireworks, including sparklers, party poppers, snakes, and other novelty items—relaxing the ban on consumer fireworks in place in Minnesota since 1941. In 2008, the Legislature further relaxed the ban by increasing the amount of explosive material allowed in legal fireworks. Local fire service professionals have reported that consumers and law enforcement personnel have had difficulty distinguishing between legal and illegal fireworks, and that the 2002 law resulted in greater use in Minnesota of illegal fireworks purchased in other states. According to data provided by the Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division, injury trends and dollar losses related to fireworks incidents surged after the consumer fireworks ban was lifted. Hospital reports reveal that the annual number of injuries caused by fireworks rose dramatically in 2002 and remains elevated. Likewise, Minnesota Fire Incident Reporting System records show that the annual dollar loss resulting from fireworks incidents increased significantly in 2002 and has since grown. In 2003, the state enacted a number of provisions limiting local authority pertaining to fireworks sales. The 2003 law caps the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 31 allowable municipal permit fee at $100 per vendor selling fireworks with other products, and $350 per vendor selling fireworks exclusively. The law restricts cities from requiring fireworks sellers to purchase additional liability insurance. Finally, the 2003 law states that cities cannot prohibit or restrict the display of consumer fireworks if the display and structure complies with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1124. The NFPA is a private international association of individuals and trade and professional organizations. (NFPA Standard 1124 is not a public document and is available only for a fee.) Fireworks products can cause serious injuries and fire loss. The legal sale of consumer fireworks undermines fire prevention efforts. The sale and use of consumer fireworks increases local public safety enforcement, emergency response, and fire-suppression costs. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes legislation that would further relax the ban on the sale and use of consumer fireworks. The League supports a repeal of the 2002 law that relaxes the ban on the sale and use of consumer fireworks. Fees are needed to cover the costs associated with compliance checks, education, and inspections relating to the sale of a regulated product. The current fee caps do not allow cities to recover these costs. The League supports allowing cities to establish and impose reasonable fees on retailers that sell fireworks. The League opposes restrictions on requiring fireworks retailers to purchase additional liability insurance. Finally, the League seeks repeal of the NFPA reference. SD-47. Traffic Enforcement Cameras Issue: Drivers who disobey traffic laws can cause serious traffic accidents and contribute to gridlock. In spite of the severity of this problem, cities cannot always afford the levels of peace officer enforcement that residents demand. The technology exists to enforce traffic laws with photographic evidence. For example, there is less running of red lights when motions imaging recording systems (MIRS) are installed at traffic signals. Response: Local law enforcement agencies should have the express authority to use photo enforcement technology to enforce traffic laws. Local law enforcement officers should have the express authority to issue citations for traffic violations by mail where the violation is detected with photographic evidence. SD-48. Operation of Motorized Foot Scooters Issue: Current state statute (Minn. Stat. § 169.225) regulates the operation of motorized foot scooters and treats motorized foot scooters similar to bicycles in terms of rights and duties. By statutory definition (Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 46), motorized foot scooters must be powered by an engine or motor that is limited to a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour. The law provides that an operator must be 12 years of age or older. Although the law contains safety provisions, including a requirement that operators under the age of 18 must wear helmets, it does not require training or permits for operators of any age. Motorized foot scooters that are part of organized sharing or rental businesses rely on the ability to park in the public right-of- League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 32 way, especially on public sidewalks, to facilitate customer access and vending. Cities have express authority to regulate parking on city streets and sidewalks. Local government units should also have clear authority to regulate or proscribe unauthorized use of city right-of-way for motorized foot scooter parking, to require a permit or license for each scooter or sharing company, and to include terms and conditions dictated by the granting authority. In order to protect public health, safety and welfare, it is important that cities have clear authority to regulate motorized foot scooter parking and sharing options. Response: State law should support the ability of local governments to regulate or proscribe unauthorized use of city right- of-way for motorized foot scooter parking, to require a permit or license authorizing motorized foot scooter parking or sharing in the public right-of- way, and to impose terms, conditions, and local rules on businesses seeking such a permit or license. SD-49. Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices and Electric Vehicles Operation While Impaired Issue: Electric personal assistive mobility devices (commonly referred to as Segways) and electric vehicles are becoming increasingly popular modes of transportation, particularly for local trips. The definitions of these types of vehicles are provided under Minn. Stat. § 169.011 as follows: • "Electric personal assistive mobility device" means a self-balancing device with two nontandem wheels, designed to transport not more than one person, and operated by an electric propulsion system that limits the maximum speed of the device to 15 miles per hour. • “Electric vehicle” means a motor vehicle that is able to be powered by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable storage batteries, fuel cells, or other portable sources of electrical current, and meets or exceeds applicable regulations in Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, part 571, and successor requirements. Electric vehicles include neighborhood electric vehicles, medium-speed electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Although the state driving while impaired (DWI) law (Minn. Stat. § 169A.20) prohibits a person with a blood alcohol level (BAC) above .08 from operating a motor vehicle, boat or off-road vehicle, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that such devices are not motor vehicles for purposes of Minnesota’s DWI laws. State v. Brown, 801 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). The court’s decision makes it difficult for local officials to prosecute a person who is threatening public safety by operating an electric personal assistive mobility device or an electric vehicle while impaired. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports an expansion of the current DWI law so that it applies to a person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device or an electric vehicle. SD-50. Drug Courts Issue: The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes the impact of substance abuse on individuals, communities and taxpayers. According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, the relationship between alcohol and drugs and crimes--including domestic abuse and League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 33 violence, underage drinking, robbery, assault and sexual assault--is clearly documented. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reports 65 percent of the nation’s inmates meet certain medical criteria for substance abuse and addiction, but only 11 percent received treatment for their addictions. Drug courts are an effective problem- solving approach for dealing with alcohol and other drug addicted offenders in the judicial system. Drug courts closely monitor the defendant's progress toward sobriety and recovery through ongoing treatment, frequent drug testing, regular mandatory check-in court appearances, and the use of a range of immediate sanctions and incentives to foster behavior change. In drug court, judges collaborate with other traditional court participants (prosecutors, defense counsel, treatment providers, probation officers, law enforcement, educational and vocational experts, community leaders and others), whose roles have been substantially modified, but not relinquished, in the interest of helping defendants deal with addiction. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the efforts of drug courts to address substance abuse and reduce crime. The League supports funding for additional drug courts. SD-51. Methamphetamine Issue: The production and abuse of methamphetamine (meth) continues to be a problem for communities across Minnesota. Cities are facing serious issues pertaining to meth, including costly cleanup of drug labs, and the social problems and public safety issues resulting from meth abuse. To meet the challenges presented by the growing meth problem, cities are working with retailers to monitor the sale of precursor ingredients, and are coordinating with other units of government on the impact on communities. Response: The Legislature and state agencies must: a) Provide sufficient funding to assist local units of government with cleanup of drug labs. b) Allow local governments to be more restrictive in the development of ordinances at the city and county level to appropriately address the needs of their communities. c) Support public education on methamphetamine, including information to local government officials, retailers, schools, and health care providers. d) Provide training, equipment, standards, and support sufficient to allow local law enforcement and other responders to safely perform their duties. SD-52. Drug Paraphernalia Issue: Cities throughout the state struggle with local businesses selling items primarily designed to enable illegal drug use. Current state law only prohibits use, possession, delivery, and advertisements of drug paraphernalia. The law inadequately defines the term “drug paraphernalia,” and leaves cities to pass more effective ordinances “prohibiting or otherwise regulating the manufacture, delivery, possession, or advertisement of drug paraphernalia.” Many cities have adopted their own ordinances to regulate drug paraphernalia, including specifically prohibiting sales. But for a variety of reasons, business owners routinely challenge these ordinances as unconstitutional and then successfully League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 34 invoke virulent public outcry on that basis. This experience—along with costly court challenges—discourages other cities from taking similar steps to curb illegal drug activity, and leaves most cities only able to enforce an inadequate state law. Most states immediately around Minnesota define “drug paraphernalia” in a detailed way based on a 1979 model federal law designed to avoid constitutional issues. Minnesota does not. Federal law and the law of half the states immediately around Minnesota explicitly ban sales of drug paraphernalia, but Minnesota does not. The current state of the law arguably makes drug paraphernalia easier to obtain in Minnesota than in the states immediately surrounding it. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports strengthening the current statutory prohibition on drug paraphernalia, including improving the statutory definition of “drug paraphernalia” and explicitly prohibiting sales. SD-53. Regulation of Massage Therapists Issue: The state does not currently license nor register massage therapists. Minn. Stat. ch. 146A is the Complementary and Alternative Health Care Practices Act which identifies prohibited provider conduct and authorizes the Minnesota Department of Health to take disciplinary action against noncompliant providers who are not registered or licensed by a health-related licensing board. The office has authority to respond to allegations of prohibited behavior through an investigatory process but this function is triggered mainly by consumer complaints and there is no requirement that the office take any action. Additionally, resources for these purposes have been severely limited. In absence of any required statewide standards or regulation, several cities have entered the traditional state domain of health-care licensure by enacting ordinances that require all massage therapists to obtain a local professional license and many cities have also required bricks and mortar establishments to obtain a business license. These ordinances help local law enforcement officers to differentiate between legitimate providers and businesses engaged in sex trafficking and prostitution as well as provide for health and sanitation standards. City staff and law enforcement have spent much time and resources conducting criminal background checks; investigating massage therapist accreditation programs to determine legitimacy and credibility; and inspecting and monitoring establishments due to citizen complaints and concerns. This has resulted in different procedures, requirements and fee structures across the state. Additionally, despite the thorough work of city staff and law enforcement, when an illegitimate business suspects investigation, it will often close down and re-open in a different city. Without any sort of statewide database of these businesses, one city’s solution may become another city’s problem. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the statewide registration or licensure of massage therapists that would not pre-empt the ability of cities to regulate massage therapy establishments. The League also supports legislation pertaining to the practice of massage therapy that accomplishes the following: League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 35 a) Helps cities establish legitimacy of providers and businesses applying for a local license to practice. b) Prevents individuals from conducting criminal activities such as prostitution and sex trafficking out of establishments operating as massage therapy facilities. c) Improves provider compliance with Minn. Stat. ch. 146A and requires the state to take action in response to noncompliance. d) Protects the public from injury and from other conditions that may result in harm. SD-54. Lawful Gambling and Local Control Issue: As part of the 2009 reforms to lawful gambling statutes, some local control was removed from the lawful gambling process. Previously, the lawful gambling licensee would have to obtain the city council’s approval as part of its application to renew the organization’s premises permit (some forms of lawful gambling require obtaining an organizational license and a premises permit(s) from the state). This step was removed when the state established a perpetual organizational license and premises permitting system. Because these licenses and permits are issued by the state, under the current system a city’s authority over these licensees is limited to: 1) approval of the initial premises permit; and 2) enforcement of the city’s lawful gambling ordinance. Some city officials have concerns that gambling organizations will be more apt to ignore local regulations (such as spending the required percentage of lawful gambling expenditures in the city’s trade area) if they don’t need the city’s approval for the renewal of their state-issued premises permits. Response: The licensee should be required to obtain local approval on an annual basis, or at longer intervals as determined by the city, and file the resolution of local approval with the Gambling Control Board. SD-55. Liquor Liability Insurance Limits Issue: Minn. Stat. § 340A.409 requires that “no retail license may be issued, maintained or renewed unless the applicant demonstrates proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minn. Stat. § 340A.801” relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. The minimum limits of liability currently in statute require $50,000 of coverage because of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence, $100,000 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence, $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence, $50,000 for loss of means of support of any one person in any one occurrence, $100,000 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrence, $50,000 for other pecuniary loss of any one person in any one occurrence, and $100,000 for other pecuniary loss of two or more persons in any one occurrence. These limits have not been updated since at least 1985 and would provide very little relief to persons impacted by an intoxicated person. While cities can choose to require higher limits of liability than required by statute, it may create competitive imbalance between communities if the limits are not consistent. Response: The minimum limits in Minn. Stat. § 340A.409 should be increased to $500,000 per occurrence with a $500,000 annual aggregate. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 36 SD-56. On-Sale Liquor or Wine Licenses to Cultural Centers Issue: Cultural centers are not one of the qualifying entities to which municipalities may issue on-sale liquor or wine licenses. Several cultural centers have received special legislation that allows their municipalities to issue on-sale liquor or wine licenses to them. This practice interferes with the ability of municipalities to control the placement and operating manner of these entities. Response: The Legislature should authorize municipalities to issue on-sale liquor or wine licenses to cultural centers, subject to restrictions imposed by the municipality. SD-57. Wine and Off-Sale Licenses Issue: Minn. Stat. ch. 340A authorizes cities to issue liquor licenses to various establishments within their jurisdictions, but in virtually all cases, the license issued by the city is not valid until the state approves it. This is true for such commonly issued licenses as wine, off-sale intoxicating liquor and temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. The result is extra time spent for city staff, as well as a time-based commercial impact to the business pursuing the original license. Additionally, if a business applies for an on- sale wine license, the state may choose to conduct an inspection of the business further delaying approval of the license and full operation of the establishment. This inspection is often in addition to a city certificate of occupancy inspection and a county health inspection. Response: The Legislature should remove the requirement of approval by the commissioner for city-issued liquor licenses and simply require cities to notify the state of newly issued and renewed licenses as is already the case for intoxicating on-sale liquor licenses and all 3.2-liquor licenses. If the state requires an inspection to certify an on-sale wine license, this should be delegated to either the city or county to be conducted at the same time as other inspections. This will expedite the process for both the state and the business. SD-58. Youth Access to Alcohol and Tobacco Issue: To promote public safety and public health, cities have an interest in preventing youth from obtaining alcohol and tobacco. For example, the Minnesota Department of Health reports that 80 percent of adult smokers had their first cigarette before the age of 18; reducing youth tobacco use may help prevent adverse impacts of tobacco in the future. To this end, many cities operate compliance check programs in an effort to discern the current level of youth access and to reduce youth access. Statewide, a number of cities have created community partnerships with their court systems, local businesses, and school districts to quickly address problems associated with youth access to alcohol and tobacco. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes any proposal that could result in increased risks of youth access to alcohol and tobacco products and supports statutory changes that assist in reducing youth access to alcohol and tobacco products. The League supports locally-determined alcohol compliance check programs, but any state mandate for alcohol compliance checks should come with state-supported funding initiatives to support these locally- determined compliance efforts. The Legislature should consider a grant League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 37 program supporting locally-based community partnerships that can quickly and effectively respond to youth access problems. SD-59. Smoking Ban Ordinances Issue: In 2007, the Legislature extended the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) to cover all workplaces, including restaurants and bars. The law sets a floor with minimum standards and allows local governments to implement more restrictive ordinances. In recent years, the popularity and use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has increased significantly. There is much that is unknown about the health impacts of e- cigarettes which has slowed government regulation of their sale and use. Because of concerns over potential health impacts and the lack of comprehensive state and federal regulation, cities have passed ordinances on an individual basis restricting the sale of e- cigarettes to minors and prohibiting their use in public places. In 2014, the Legislature passed regulations on the sale of e-cigarettes to mirror existing cigarette sale regulations including prohibiting sale to minors. It also passed a law prohibiting use in public buildings owned and operated by the State of Minnesota and all political subdivisions. The Legislature did not ban indoor use in all workplaces. Response: Many cities have already passed ordinances banning the use of e- cigarettes in all public places. To ensure uniformity and consistency across the state, the Legislature should regulate e- cigarettes under the MCIAA while preserving the ability of local governments to enact more restrictive ordinances. SD-60. Regulation of Mobile Businesses Issue: The transient nature of mobile businesses presents unique challenges to traditional city zoning and permitting and may create an unfair competitive advantage over traditional businesses that pay property taxes and generate income for a city. Cities also make significant investments in the development of retail districts and downtowns and have a strong interest in maintaining a level playing field for brick and mortar establishments. Minnesota has seen a sharp increase in the number of food trucks (Mobile Food Units) operating throughout the state. Food trucks are licensed as food and beverage service establishments by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) or by local jurisdictions pursuant to an MDH delegation agreement. Food trucks are prohibited from operating in the same location for more than 21 days without approval of the regulatory authority. In 2015, the Legislature authorized the Board of Cosmetologist Examiners to adopt rules governing the licensure, operation and inspection of “Mobile Salons” which are operated in a mobile vehicle or mobile structure for exclusive use to offer personal services defined in Minn. Stat. § 155A.23, subd. 3. The rules must prohibit mobile salons from violating reasonable municipal restrictions on time and place of operation of a mobile salon within its jurisdiction, and shall establish penalties, up to and including revocation of a license, for repeated violations of municipal laws. Response: It is appropriate for mobile businesses to be licensed by the state or its designees in the same manner as non- mobile business establishments. Such state regulation must not preempt the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 38 ability of local governments to enact reasonable time and place restrictions on the operation of mobile businesses within their jurisdictions. SD-61. Regulation of Party Buses and Boats-for-Hire Issue: A party bus (also known as a party ride, limo bus, limousine bus, party van, or luxury bus) is a large motor vehicle usually derived from a conventional (school) bus or coach, but modified and designed to carry 8 or more people for recreational purposes. In Minnesota, these vehicles are regulated by default under Minn. Stat. ch. 221 (the chapter of law dealing with motor carriers) and registered by the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations. The regulations require operators to carry commercial insurance, have an annual vehicle inspection and be registered with the state. Party bus drivers are required to hold a current commercial driver’s license (CDL) issued through the Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety’s Driver and Vehicle Services Division. A boat-for-hire is a watercraft used by owners and operators to carry passengers for hire. Minn. Stat. § 326B.94 and Minnesota Rules 5225.6000 through 5225.7200 govern the requirements of boat owners and operators carrying passengers for hire on Minnesota’s inland waters. These vessels must have a permit to carry passengers for hire. They must have an annual safety inspection and a dry-dock inspection performed by Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry boiler inspection personnel once every three years (or annually if the hull is made of wood). The vessels must also be operated by a licensed master and must follow all Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources’ boating and water recreation regulations. Party buses and boats-for-hire are sometimes chartered for celebrations such as weddings, proms, bachelor and bachelorette parties, birthdays and tours. Party buses are also popular for round trips to casinos and sporting events, and personalized drop-offs and pick-ups at various bars and nightclubs. Additionally, both party buses and boats-for- hire have become popular settings for adult entertainment. Cities have seen a sharp increase in the number of party buses and boats-for-hire being used as venues for illegal activities such as underage drinking, drug use and sex trafficking. The transient nature of party buses and boats-for-hire presents unique challenges to traditional city zoning, permitting and law enforcement. While state laws regulate requirements for the operation of party buses and boats-for-hire, the law is silent on enforcement, penalties, inspection and liability related to illegal activities that occur in party buses and on boats-for-hire. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports changes to state statutes that would help reduce criminal activities taking place on party buses and boats- for-hire. Specifically, the League supports: a) Creation of statutory definitions of “party bus” and “boat-for-hire” that contain permissible uses of the vehicles; b) Prohibition on offering or allowing “adult entertainment” as defined by Minn. Stat. § 617.242, “sexual conduct” as defined by Minn. Stat. § 617.241, or “nudity” as defined by Minn. Stat. § 617.292, subd. 3, on party buses and boats-for-hire; c) Explicit authority for peace officers to investigate suspicious activities on party buses and boats-for-hire and to League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 39 cite individuals on board who are involved in illegal activities; and d) Requiring the appropriate authority to utilize existing authority to impose fines, or to deny, suspend, or revoke permits or registration certificates held by operators found to have adult entertainment, drug, or underage consumption violations. SD-62. Environmental Protection Issue: Cities demonstrate strong stewardship for the protection and preservation of the environment. Minnesota municipalities have historically been the leading funding source for environmental protection and improvements. Municipal efforts include environmental protection through wastewater treatment, wetland restorations, stormwater treatment, public utility emission reductions, brownfield cleanup, safe drinking water programs, as well as others. At some point, however, the diminishing or nonexistent environmental benefit received from additional efforts is fiscally irresponsible. The programs are often improperly designed to meet their stated goals. Additionally, the absence of funding by the state and federal government has removed an essential restraining feature in program design and implementation. Agencies are less accountable to the governments that mandate environmental programs when they do not have to find the money to implement the programs. Specific problems faced by cities include: a) New programs or standards are continually adopted without regard to the existence, attainability or cost of existing programs and standards. b) Regulatory bodies fail to consistently use the best science available and the most current and accurate data when establishing water quality standards. c) Regulatory bodies impose new permit requirements without going through rulemaking. Instead, the agencies rely on internal documents, program strategies, and “best professional judgment of staff” when setting permit criteria. d) Regulatory bodies approve permits and programs that compete with traditional municipal services and encourage urban sprawl. This behavior puts at risk the public investments and growth management efforts cities have made when planning for future development. e) Permit fees and other cost-transfer elements of federal and state programs do not provide an incentive for environmental agency efficiency, policy prioritization or risk assessment. Additionally, all residents of the state contribute to the need for wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater treatment and benefit from the resulting improved water quality. These factors make the state general fund an appropriate source for significant portions of state water program funding. f) Third-party environmental advocacy groups create significant hardships on cities by threatening litigation even when the best science available may not support the groups’ positions. g) Cities are often required to pay the cost of removing problem materials from the waste stream, rather than preventing the problem at the consumer product or manufacturing level. Response: Alternative wastewater treatment and cooperative service systems should be prohibited from operating in areas that can reasonably and effectively be served by existing municipal systems, unless: League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 40 a) The municipal system is proven to be substantially less cost-effective and substantially less beneficial to the environment; and b) The operation of these systems will not create a stranded public investment in the existing system. Sufficient state and federal financial assistance should be provided to local governments when complying with state and federal infrastructure requirements, particularly with regard to wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water facilities. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) should streamline its permitting and re-issuing processes to allow for effluent standards and permit requirements to be known earlier, thereby giving communities more time to defend against contested case hearings. The Legislature should require the MPCA to make its determination regarding permit-required submittals, permit modifications, and the reissuance of a permit within a reasonable set time period, and require the MPCA to make its determinations and reissue the permit within that reasonable set time frame. The state should ensure townships are required to meet the same environmental protection and regulatory requirements as cities. Legislation should be passed that requires state agencies to establish permit requirements only when the criteria they are using is developed through the rule- making process. State agencies need to develop science- based standards and quantify new effluent standards, ensuring that they are scientifically and economically practicable. State and federal agencies should coordinate and integrate their monitoring data to assure that all pertinent data is available and utilized. The state general fund is an appropriate source for state water program funding. Municipal water permit fees should only be increased if new revenue is needed because of increased costs of processing municipal water permits or if the funds would go for specific scientific research, technical and financial support for cities, or agency staffing needed by cities to address environmental and public health concerns, not as a means to generate new revenue to cover other budget shortfalls. Additionally, the Legislature should create effective, producer-led reduction, reuse, and recycling programs to deal with a product’s lifecycle impacts from design through end-of-life management and should regulate products and compounds that damage water quality, sewer collection, stormwater or wastewater treatment systems at the consumer and manufacturing levels, not just at the treatment and infrastructure maintenance level. Examples include requiring accurate labeling as to whether disposable wipes can be safely flushed and creating incentives for private salt applicators to reduce the volume of salt they apply. SD-63. Impaired Waters Issue: Despite the billions of dollars that Minnesota municipalities have invested and continue to invest in wastewater and stormwater management systems, and best management practices to protect, preserve, and restore the quality of Minnesota’s surface waters, the quality of some of Minnesota’s surface waters does not meet federal water quality requirements. The League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 41 federal Clean Water Act requires that further efforts be made by the state to reduce human impacts on surface waters that are determined to be impaired due to high pollutant loads of nutrients, bacteria, sediment, mercury, and other contaminants. Scientific studies of these waters must be conducted to determine how much pollution they can handle (Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs). The pollutant load reduction requirements will affect municipal, industrial, and agricultural practices and operations along any river, stream or lake determined to be impaired. While the sources of 86 percent of the pollutants affecting Minnesota waters are non-point sources, there will also be new costs and requirements for point-source dischargers, like municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Municipal stormwater systems will also face increased protective requirements and regulation as part of the state’s impaired waters program. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities will work actively with the administration, the Legislature, and other stakeholders in the design and implementation of Minnesota’s impaired waters program to: a) Ensure equitable funding solutions are found, such as the state general fund or bonding, that broadly collect revenue to address this statewide problem; b) Support legislative appropriation of constitutionally dedicated clean water revenues that will supplement traditional sources of funding for these purposes, not be used to cover budget cuts, backfill past program reductions, or to otherwise supplant normal state spending on water programs; c) Direct the majority of funds collected by the state for impaired waters into programs that fund municipal wastewater and stormwater projects, and for state programs needed for municipal wastewater and stormwater permitting and technical support, including the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund, Wastewater Infrastructure Fund, TMDL Grants Program, Small Community Wastewater Treatment Grant and Loan Program, and other state programs that provide financial resources for city wastewater treatment facilities, septic tank replacement, stormwater management projects, and other city water quality improvement and protection projects; d) More adequately cover the current five-year wastewater infrastructure funding need projection of more than $1.65 billion; e) Recognize and address the upcoming costs of stormwater management infrastructure and operation on municipalities from new regulatory mandates and load reduction requirements; f) Allow flexibility in achieving pollutant load reductions and limitations through offsets or trading of pollutant load reduction credits for both point and non-point load reduction requirements within watersheds; g) Recognize and credit the work underway and already completed by local units of government to limit point and non-point source water pollutant discharges; h) Recognize the diversity of efforts and needs that exists across the state; i) Ensure the best science available is used to accurately determine the sources of pollutant load in order to maximize positive environmental outcomes and minimize unnecessary regulatory and financial burdens for League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 42 cities by correctly accounting for and addressing agricultural and other non-point pollutant sources; j) Ensure the state requires that the MPCA retain control of the TMDL development process and that all scientific research related to TMDLs is conducted by the MPCA or qualified, objective parties pursuant to state contracting, procurement, and conflict of interest laws; and k) Clarify state water quality mandates so cities know specifically what they are required to do and what methods of achieving those outcomes are acceptable to state and federal regulators. SD-64. Municipal Public Water Supplies Issue: Essential residential water supplies provided by public water supply systems are classified as the highest priority for the use of public water under Minn. Stat. §103G.261. Minnesota cities spend significant resources meeting their responsibility to providing safe, reliable, affordable water to their residents in a sustainable manner. That is an essential element in assuring a healthy and stable future for public health, the environment, and economic development. As a result, municipal water suppliers have collected some of the most current and accurate information available on local water conditions. The state requires extensive planning and permitting processes for municipal water suppliers to document that their systems are drawing water at sustainable levels, that the water is safe for human consumption, that they have land use controls in place to protect public water supplies from contamination, that adequate plans exist for emergency and high demand situations, and that rate structures meet state statutory requirements. Those systems are constantly becoming more technologically, environmentally, and economically efficient. City water suppliers have invested many billions of dollars to develop their utility systems and infrastructure in a manner that meets those criteria. Demand and supply sides of this issue are being addressed throughout the state. Cities have established educational programs, incentives, and local water use restrictions to further improve water conservation efforts, while appliances and plumbing fixtures are becoming more efficient in their water use. Furthermore, stormwater is being infiltrated into the ground at unprecedented levels as part of municipal stormwater permit requirements and is being redirected for irrigation purposes in some cities. Despite those efforts, there are places in the state where monitoring data indicates that water may be being used faster than the supply can sustain, particularly in the case of underground aquifers. These issues are very complex, however, and causes and effects are not always easily documented or understood. City water supplies are not the only users of that water, either. Industries, smaller private wells, agricultural operations, irrigation systems, and contamination containment and treatment can all be major drains on local water supplies. Hard facts and sound science need to be used to determine the best courses of action to assure that safe, reliable, affordable water supplies are available to future Minnesotans. Those approaches will vary considerably depending on local water and soil conditions, the types and sizes of users, and the quantity and quality of available water. They also need to be coordinated between the many state entities that play a role in League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 43 water management and regulations so that scarce local resources are not wasted and efforts are not counterproductive to other priority environmental and public health results. Response: The state should lead the development of sound scientific information on water supply, aquifer recharge, and groundwater availability and quality, making good use of the existing studies, data, and staff expertise of municipal water suppliers. The state should also be working to remove barriers to water re-use, aquifer recharge, encouraging cultural changes in water use practices, applying technology for smart water use, exploring impacts and creative mitigation options at contaminated sites, on ways to incent and enable alternate uses of stormwater, and ways to make sure that all water users play a role in ensuring that water supplies are being managed in a manner that is sustainable for future residents. Those solutions need to keep in mind that essential residential water use is the highest preferred use of public water supplies. Finally, in cases where sound management of water resources will require substantial modifications in public water systems that were previously determined to be adequate, the state needs to be a partner in developing cost- effective solutions and in providing the technical and financial resources to make those changes to prevent communities from being economically uncompetitive. SD-65. Municipal Electric Utilities Issue: Municipal electric utilities provide essential community services to many Minnesota cities. The League of Minnesota Cities works closely with the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association (MMUA) to identify issues of concern and to support their legislative and administrative efforts to address them. How those entities are regulated by the state, how their service territory is defined and amended, how their very limited customer base is protected, and how they are treated in relation to other types of electric utilities is important to them remaining affordable, efficient, and effective. Currently, the legislative proposals have been made to allow unregulated third-party electricity sales from generators directly to the customer, circumventing long- established consumer protections. In some cases, municipal utilities would be required to “wheel” energy from third parties across their power lines to retail customers in violation of the utility’s exclusive service area rights. Another way to arrange third-party sales is by selling electricity from solar panels or other generating equipment sited on a consumer’s own property to retail customers, while maintaining ownership of those panels or equipment. The equipment owner would charge for electricity it provides, yet rely on the local utility to provide reliable service to the customer at all other times. While such arrangements may seem convenient to an unregulated third-party, they come at a significant cost to the utilities and subsequently, to the rate payers of that utility. Providing municipal reliable utility services comes with certain unavoidable expenses such as electric generation, power lines, poles, and substations. These types of fixed costs are on-going and should be equitably shared by the local customers. However, both current and previously proposed changes to state law would give third-party League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 44 providers an advantage subsidized by the remaining rate payers and/or taxpayer. Response: The legislature should support and maintain the current regulatory compact, and recognize the value of the dependable services provided by municipal utilities, and the fact that municipal utilities are accountable directly to the citizens. Further, the legislature should reject giving third- party providers any advantage over municipal utilities, as well as any other effort to de-regulate utilities. Additionally, current state practice is for the Department of Commerce and Public Utility Commission to require payment of quarterly fees on municipal utilities to the Department of Commerce three quarters in advance. The state should bill for those fees only for the upcoming quarter SD-66. State Support for Municipal Energy Policy Goals Issue: The State of Minnesota has adopted an aggressive energy policy focusing on the promotion of energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable energy with the goal of achieving a reduction in carbon generation through reduced use of fossil fuels. Minnesota cities share this goal, as demonstrated by over 100 cities voluntarily participating in the GreenStep Cities program. However, already strained budgets and reserves at the state and local level have limited the ability of the state to assist local units of government in furthering specific projects that support the overall state goal. In addition, institutional knowledge and capacity of most cities limits their ability to explore energy efficiency or renewable energy projects, even projects whose energy “payback” could finance project capital costs. As the role cities are playing in reducing energy use and developing renewable energy generation expands, how those efforts are affected by electric utility practices also becomes more important. Utility billing is not consistent between electric utilities, with many using different rate categories, significantly complicating B3 benchmarking reporting and billing transparency. For projects on which a utility provides capital, the length of time over which city projects are amortized can also be extended to the point that energy cost savings are eliminated, even with substantial demand reductions. The application of demand and peak demand rates in repayment schedules can also reduce or eliminate energy cost savings. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities calls on our legislators and state executive agencies charged with accomplishing the state’s energy policy goals to assist cities, townships and counties with tailored efforts to identify appropriate energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for undertaking at the local level. Among those tools, the state should: a) Help ensure that reduced energy use results in reduced energy costs by addressing problems with amortization timing; b) Have laws that allow and support utility grant and loan programs; c) Create a program to assist in covering local capital costs to install solar energy systems on public buildings; d) Use proceeds from the Renewable Development Fund to support local government projects; e) Provide increased flexibility for utilities to work with local government; f) Support development of a unified electric energy billing and usage structure that is easily imported into a B3 Benchmarking tracking system; League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 45 g) Develop a framework that allows Property Assessed Clean Energy Programs; h) Play an increased role in providing a network of charging stations to support a transition to electric vehicles; i) Create a grant and loan program to offset start-up capital expenses for projects identified where the savings in energy costs can offset capital project costs or where projects are needed to meet energy policy goals; j) Clarify state law so that cities may use public utility franchise agreements to advance energy policy goals, and; k) Recognize that state energy agency technical expertise needs to be made available to cities at no cost. SD-67. Urban Forest Management Funding Issue: Urban forests are an essential part of city infrastructure. Dutch elm disease, oak wilt disease, drought, storms, and emerald ash borer threaten our investment in trees. The costs for control and removal can be catastrophic and put pressure on city budgets. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, through its Urban and Community Forestry program, and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, through its Shade Tree and Invasive Species program, currently have regulatory authority to direct tree sanitation and control programs. Although these programs allow for addressing some tree disease, pest, and other problems, funding levels have been inadequate to meet the need of cities to build capacity for urban tree programs and respond to catastrophic problems. Cities share the goal of the state’s Releaf Program—promoting and funding the inventory, planning, planting, maintenance, and improvement of trees in cities throughout the state. In addition, economic gains for stormwater management, tourism, recreation, and other benefits must be protected from tree loss. A lack of timely investment in urban forests costs cities significantly more in the long run. Further, more and more cities are facing immediate costs for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of emerald ash borer (EAB) as it spreads across the state. The state has no program to assist cities in covering those expenses. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports funding from the general fund or other appropriate state funds for a state matching grant program to assist cities with building capacity for urban forest management and meeting the costs of preparing for, and responding to, catastrophic urban forest problems. Specifically, direct grants to cities are desperately needed for the identification, removal, replacement, and treatment of trees related to management of EAB. The state should establish an ongoing grant program with at least $5 million per year that is usable for those activities. SD-68. Election Issues Issue: Cities play an important role in administering state and federal election law and conducting voting activities. Response: To strengthen the effectiveness of elections administration, the Legislature should: a) Seek the input of cities, townships, counties, and school districts on proposed changes to voter registration, election law, and needed improvements and updates to the Statewide Voter Registration System; League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 46 b) Amend the timeline for candidate filings in cities without a primary so that the final day of filing is not on the August primary date; c) Expedite court action to resolve candidate eligibility related to residency in errors and omissions proceedings; and d) Eliminate redundant audio testing of assistive voting technology and equipment by election judges in precinct polling places on Election Day. SD-69. Administering Absentee Balloting Issue: Eligible voters in Minnesota may vote by absentee ballot prior to Election Day. Starting 46 days before the election, a voter can request an application for an absentee ballot and if approved, receive and cast an absentee ballot in one visit to their county or city election offices. Ballots can also be requested, applied for and received by mail and returned by the voter to the election office by 3:00 pm on Election Day or by 8:00 pm on Election Day if delivered by mail or package delivery. Absentee balloting results are not known until combined with polling place results when the polls close on Election Day. For those voting absentee in-person, the absentee ballot application process is burdensome and confusing as voters expect the same process they encounter in their polling place on Election Day. The application process should be replaced by having the voter verify their identity on a paper or electronic roster. Currently electronic signatures are not allowed by state law; having the authority to use electronic signatures would make the process more efficient. Streamlining the voter check-in procedures would increase efficiency and decrease the time voters spend in line waiting to cast their absentee ballot. Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 4 stipulates that at the close of business on the seventh day before Election Day, elections administrators can begin processing absentee ballots received by mail and accepted. At the beginning of the seventh day before Election Day, in-person absentee voters can place their ballots directly into a tabulator (Minn. Stat. § 203B.081, subd. 3). If a voter who has voted absentee prior to the seventh day before Election Day wishes to “claw back” their ballot and receive a new ballot, they are able to do so through the seventh day. Once direct balloting begins, a voter should no longer be able to “claw back” a ballot. Additionally, opening absentee ballots that have been accepted should begin at the beginning of the day on the seventh day before Election Day. For those who vote in-person absentee prior to the seven days before Election Day, there is confusion and in some cases, frustration that they are not allowed to place their ballots directly into a tabulator. To improve the voter experience and respond to the voter demand to vote early, this time period should be increased from seven to the full 46 days before Election Day. Additionally, a voter can request to place their ballot in a series of envelopes similar to those returned by mail to be processed after they have left the building. Few, if any, voters request to place their ballot into envelopes. State law allows alternative sites for conducting absentee balloting but requires that these sites remain open for the full 46 days prior to Election Day. For some jurisdictions, staffing alternative sites for the full 46 days is not efficient as these sites may be underutilized until closer to Election Day. Cities should be able to determine the length of time most appropriate for League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 47 alternative sites to meet the voting demands of their residents. As required by state law, voters would maintain the ability to vote in- person absentee during the full 46-day period at city halls. Current law allows for in-person absentee voting until 5:00 p.m. on the day before Election Day. This does not leave adequate time for election officials to process absentee ballots, prepare supplemental lists indicating which voters have already cast absentee ballots and deliver the lists to precincts prior to opening of the polls on Election Day. The current absentee voting process further requires that additional supplemental lists of final absentee voters be delivered to the polls after the last mail delivery on Election Day and often leads to administrative challenges and increased potential for errors in the process. As more and more voters choose to vote early with absentee balloting, improvements must be made to increase efficiency of administering absentee balloting before Election Day, reduce the potential for errors, and to improve voter experience. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) Reviewing the current in-person absentee ballot application process to determine if paper, electronic or a combination of the two application processes would be more efficient and be preferable to voters; b) Amending state statute to allow elections administrators to begin processing accepted absentee ballots when direct balloting begins at the beginning of the seventh day before Election Day and subsequently, concluding the “claw back” period at the close of business the day before; c) Increasing the time period that an in- person absentee voter can place their ballot directly into a tabulator from seven to 46 days; d) Eliminating the option to place an in- person absentee ballot in a series of envelopes instead of a tabulator; e) Allowing alternative in-person absentee voting sites to be established for less than the full 46 days currently required by state law; f) Establishing an earlier deadline for ending in-person absentee voting; g) Revising absentee ballot regulations to allow any person 18 and older to witness the absentee process and sign the envelope as a witness; and h) Authorizing cities with health care facilities to schedule election judges to conduct absentee voting at an earlier date in health care facilities. SD-70. Felon Voting Rights Issue: There is confusion as to when felon voting rights are restored, and notification of restoration is inconsistent or nonexistent. While there were some changes made to data sharing requirements between the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Secretary of State in the 2013 legislative session, the process of notifying felons of their eligibility to vote was not improved. This very often leads to challenges placed on Election Day rosters for felons who are not eligible to vote and election judges must then challenge the voter and spend time and resources determining a voter’s eligibility. It would be much clearer if the loss of voting rights occurred only when a person is incarcerated. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes the loss of voting rights for felons who serve the entirety of their sentence in the community and are not incarcerated. If incarcerated, the League League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 48 of Minnesota Cities supports the restoration of voting rights to felons once they have completed their term of incarceration. This will eliminate the administrative burden of challenging voters at the polls and determining eligibility from various jurisdictions. This will also eliminate the need for investigation by local law enforcement of those who have unknowingly registered to vote or voted before their rights were restored. SD-71. Write-in Candidates in City Elections Issue: For federal, state and county offices, write-in candidates are totaled together as one number for write-in votes. If a candidate wants the write-in votes to be individually recorded, the candidate must file a written request with the Secretary of State no later than seven days before the general or special Election Day. This provides any declared write-in candidate the same provisions for tabulation as a candidate whose name is printed on the ballot. Because this requirement does not exist in city elections, city election officials are required to take considerable time and resources to count and individually record write-in votes cast, many of which are frivolous. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislation to: a) Give cities the option to require that write-in candidates for local elective offices file a formal request with the chief election official at least seven days before the city election if they wish to have their write-in votes individually recorded; and b) Allow the city clerk to only compile and report write-in votes for specific candidates if the total number of write-in votes for an office is greater than or equal to the number of votes received by the candidate appearing on the ballot receiving the fewest number of votes. SD-72. Ranked Choice Voting Issue: Current law allows charter cities to consider and adopt Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as an alternative voting method in local elections. State statute does not extend this authority to statutory cities. Additionally, there are no statewide standards for conducting RCV. The lack of consistent guidelines on how to effectively implement a RCV system imposes significant challenges for election administrators and voters. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislation that would give statutory cities the same authority given to charter cities to consider and adopt RCV. The League of Minnesota Cities also supports statewide standards for those cities that choose to adopt RCV to ensure it is implemented consistently throughout the state to give voters confidence in the fairness of the alternative process of casting their ballots and in the outcome of such elections. SD-73. Posting Campaign Finance Reports Online Issue: The 2014 Legislature passed a law requiring the filing officer of a local government to post all campaign reports required to be filed with the local government online. The law does not change what reports must be filed and only requires the posting of reports online if a city has a website. The filing officer must post the reports on the city’s website as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after receipt of the report. The reports must be available on the city’s website for four years League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 49 from the date the report was posted to the website. While posting the reports online may be more convenient for citizens and city staff alike as it will replace the physical distribution of reports upon request, the time required to make the report available may be difficult for maintenance of city websites. Response: While the League of Minnesota Cities supports increasing access to information through the use of city websites, the League also urges the Legislature to revisit the length of time required to keep reports online. SD-74. Electronic Rosters Issue: While electronic rosters (or “e-poll books”) may increase efficiency and decrease cost for some cities, this may not be true for all. As cities explore the use of electronic rosters, data collected from the Office of the Secretary of State and from jurisdictions that have used the technology, may be helpful in determining next steps and to improve the process. Currently when a voter verifies their identity at a polling place via an electronic roster, they sign a paper form. State law does not allow voters to sign the e-poll book. Response: As the Legislature continues to examine the use of electronic rosters, cities should retain the option of utilizing this technology but should not be required to do so. If cities choose to use e- poll books, the use of electronic signatures should be allowed to increase efficiency. To ensure there is a paper copy of the signatures, the receipts printed by the electronic rosters should include a copy of the voter’s signature. SD-75. Election Judge Recruitment and Retention Issue: Nearly 30,000 Minnesotans serve as election judges. The recruitment and retention of election judges is a significant and essential component of administering elections throughout the State of Minnesota. State statute requires that precincts with more than 500 registered voters be assigned at least four election judges and those with fewer than 500 registered voters be assigned at least three election judges. Minn. Stat. § 204B.21 requires that at least two election judges in each precinct serve with a different major political party designation, except for student trainee election judges. The remaining election judges in a precinct can serve without an affiliation to a major political party and no more than half the judges in a precinct may belong to the same major political party. Statute specifically requires election judge party balance to perform four polling place activities: assisting a voter in curbside voting; opening the ballot box; duplicating ballots; and in conducting an election at a Healthcare Facility. Political party affiliation is also unnecessary in city special elections when offices on the ballot are nonpartisan. Minn. Stat. § 204B.19 allows high school students to be excused from school to serve as a trainee election judge if the student submits a written request signed and approved by the student's parent or guardian to be absent from school and a certificate from the appointing authority stating the hours during which the student will serve as a trainee election judge to the principal of the school at least ten days prior to the election. This process is not currently extended to college students which has proven to be a barrier for recruiting college students to serve as election judges. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 50 Additionally, teachers and college faculty are also allowed to take time off of work to serve as an election judge. Response: To ensure state requirements are met, party balance is maintained, and to expand the opportunity of serving as an election judge to others, the League of Minnesota Cities supports the following changes: a) Eliminate the party balance requirement for elections where only nonpartisan offices and/or ballot questions are on the ballot; b) Authorize college students to get time off from classes if they have been appointed to serve as an election judge; c) Allow for one election judge affiliated with each major political party to perform the four activities that require party balance specifically outline in statute and allow the remaining judges to serve as non- partisan; and d) Shorten the deadline for major political parties to provide lists of persons interested in serving as election judges to election officials within 30 days following precinct caucuses. SD-76. Mail Balloting Issue: Minn. Stat. § 204B.45 authorizes all non-metropolitan townships and cities with less than 400 registered voters located outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul seven- county metropolitan area to hold elections by mail. A city may conduct mail balloting for an individual precinct having fewer than 100 registered voters, subject to the approval of the county auditor. Staffing and equipment needs can be very costly and mail balloting is an efficient way of conducting an election for cities that have lower numbers of registered voters regardless of location in or outside the metro area. It is not uncommon for the redistricting process to create very small precincts in the metro area that are more cost-effectively served by a mail balloting process. Additionally, for special elections that historically have lower turnout, mail balloting could increase voter participation. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports allowing all cities to conduct mail balloting. SD-77. Modernizing Charter Amendment Process Issue: Minn. Stat. § 410.12 outlines the process for amending city charters and one of the methods is citizen petition and Minn. Rules 8205 provides specific criteria for formatting. City staff then review the petition to determine if it is valid and has met statutory requirements for completion and submission. To ensure that both citizens and city staff fully understand the requirements, clarifying changes should be made. Additionally, if a charter commission or city council wishes to amend provisions in a charter that prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor or wine in certain areas, such provisions shall not be amended or removed unless approved by voters. The process to amend a charter by ordinance is outlined in statute including notification and public hearing requirements. Response: To improve the process for amending a city charter, the League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) Adding clarifying language regarding “registered voters”. These voters League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 51 must be eligible voters in the district for which the petition is being circulated who are in active status on the statewide registration system at the time of petition verification and have not had a name or address change since the most recent voter registration application was submitted. b) Ensuring that petitioners have access to the petition, public information lists used to verify registered voters, and the examination log available for inspection on request of any registered voter. c) Revising Minn. Rules 8205 to ensure that formatting requirements are clear and up to date. Allowing cities to modify liquor provisions in the charter through an open and transparent process that does not require an election. SD-78. Presidential Primary Issue: In 2016, the legislature passed into law a process for the state of Minnesota to conduct a presidential primary in 2020, replacing the party caucus system. This election will be administered by cities and counties much the same way other elections are conducted. Minn. Stat. § 207A.15 provides a process for local units of government to be reimbursed for expenses incurred from conducting the primary. The Office of the Secretary of State (OSS) will submit to the Department of Management and Budget (MMB) an estimated cost of administering the election, and MMB will provide funding to the OSS. That funding will then be distributed to local units of government as a reimbursement based on expense reporting submitted to the OSS. Because the election is a partisan activity administered on behalf of political parties, it is critical that local units of government be reimbursed fully and that the cost of the election not be borne by Minnesota taxpayers. When a voter participates in the primary, they will choose one ballot representing one major party. This party declaration will be included in public information lists which are designated as public information. Though the election is a political activity, it is anticipated that voters will be very concerned that this information will be accessible by anyone. The last time the state of Minnesota held a presidential primary was in 1992 and turn- out was very low. There is concern that this could happen in 2020 and would therefore be an inefficient use of resources, particularly staffing thousands of precincts throughout the state. Conducting the election by mail could conserve resources and potentially increase voter participation. Response: The current process for conducting a presidential primary in 2020 needs to be improved to ensure an efficient and positive voting experience for those who chose to participate. To do so, the League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) Exploring expanding the list of reimbursable items currently outlined in statute to ensure that local units of government are fully reimbursed for conducting the primary; b) Restricting the dissemination of party declaration information to the political parties only and not including it on the public information lists; and c) Allowing the presidential primary to be conducted via mail balloting. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 52 IMPROVING LOCAL ECONOMIES LE-1. Growth Management and Annexation Issue: Unplanned and uncontrolled growth has a negative environmental, fiscal, and governmental impact on cities, counties, and the state because it increases the cost of providing government services and results in the loss of natural resource areas and prime agricultural land. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities believes the existing framework for guiding growth and development primarily through local plans and controls adopted by local governments should form the basis of a statewide planning policy, and that the state should not adopt a mandatory comprehensive statewide planning process. Rather, the state should: a) Provide additional financial and technical assistance to local governments for cooperative planning and growth management issues, particularly where new comprehensive plans have been mandated by the Legislature; b) Keep comprehensive planning timelines on a ten-year cycle due to the financial and workload impacts these processes place on cities; c) Clearly establish the public purposes served by existing statewide controls, such as shore land zoning and wetlands conservation; clarify, simplify, and streamline these controls; eliminate duplication in their administration; and fully defend and hold harmless any local government sued for a “taking” as a result of executing state land-use policies; d) Give cities broader authority to extend their zoning, subdivision, and other land-use controls outside the city’s boundaries, regardless of the existence of county or township controls, to ensure conformance with city facilities and services; e) Clearly define and differentiate between urban and rural development and restrict urban growth without municipal services or annexation agreements outside city boundaries. This should contain a requirement that counties and joint power districts that provide sewer, water, and other services, which have been traditionally provided by cities, include as a condition of providing service the annexation of properties that are the recipients of such services in cases where annexation is requested by a city that could feasibly be providing those services; f) Facilitate the annexation of urban land to cities by amending state statutes that regulate annexation to make it easier for cities to annex developed or developing land within unincorporated areas; g) Oppose legislation that would reinstate the election requirement in contested annexations; h) Support legislation to prohibit detachment of parcels from cities unless approval of the detachment has been granted by both the affected city and township and the affected county has been notified prior to the city and township acting on the request; i) Oppose legislation that allows orderly annexation agreements to be adopted that prohibit annexation by other cities of property not being annexed under the agreement; j) Encourage ideas consistent with the long-term goal of allowing urban League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 53 development only in areas currently or about to become urban or suburban in character ; and k) Establish stricter criteria on the amount cities can pay to townships as part of an orderly annexation agreement so that payments to townships are limited to reimbursement for lost property tax base for no more than a fixed number of years, documented stranded assessments, and other items for which there is a clear nexus. LE-2. Wildlife Management Areas Issue: The Department of Natural Resources has been pressing for legislative requirements creating development restrictions on property adjacent to land purchased by the state for hunting and other conservation purposes. This issue has been increasingly controversial as urban growth extends into areas previously considered rural and residential property owners are finding themselves adjacent to public hunting land. With large amounts of new revenue going into state land purchase for game and fish habitat and public access purposes because of the passage of the constitutional amendment, these problems could occur even more frequently. The solution being proposed will put local governments in the position of enforcing state land use restrictions and would require extensive changes to local plans, controls and ordinances. It would also create large numbers of nonconformities on properties within city limits and would make state wildlife management areas far less desirable due to impacts on future city development. In rural areas, where this is less of a concern, counties and townships have the authority to object to the state purchasing land for the outdoor recreation system for these very reasons. Cities do not have that statutory right. Due to recent statutory changes (Minn. Stat. § 97A.137, subd. 4) removing city authority to adopt ordinances related to firearm discharge, hunting and trapping activity in wildlife management areas within their borders, these purchases should not occur without city consent and input. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes the state imposing retroactive development restrictions around existing wildlife management areas. When purchasing state wildlife management areas and other conservation and outdoor recreation system land, the state should either purchase sufficient land to provide an internal buffer from surrounding development or purchase development rights to land adjacent to the property if such a buffer is deemed essential to preserving the intended uses for the property. This should be required for new land purchases and done where feasible for existing wildlife management areas. Furthermore, Minn. Stat. § 84.944 and § 97A.145 should be amended to include cities in the local government notification and approval process the state must follow before purchasing public land. LE-3. Official State Mapping Responsibility Issue: For many years, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has provided the mapping services to keep survey-level accuracy in place for the state’s official maps and records. That information changes when roads are made or improved, and needs regular adjustment when municipal boundary adjustments are made. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 54 The information is then used at all levels of government to accurately determine property boundaries for transportation aid, utility service boundaries, state and local funding formulas, election issues, and a number of other uses. No state agency, however, has ever been statutorily provided with mapping responsibility and MnDOT is not funded for providing that level of detail in its mapping. Because MnDOT, as an agency, requires less specificity in its maps, a change has slowly been integrated to mostly restrict MnDOT mapping to what changes occur in road ownership and responsibility, leaving many mapping needs unmet for other users of boundary data. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislation making a named state entity the official provider of survey-level mapping for the state, including maps for municipal boundary adjustments. The Legislature must provide the necessary appropriations to the entity for providing that service. LE-4. Electric Service Extension Issue: Minnesota law preserves the right of municipal electric utilities to grow with the cities they serve. Municipal electric utilities may grow either through application to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) or through condemnation proceedings. Eliminating authority of municipal electric utilities to extend services, or making extension of municipal electric service to annexed property unreasonably costly, would interfere with community development and make it unfeasible for municipal electric utilities to serve properties located within rural electric cooperative (REC) or other electric service provider service territory in annexed areas, even if the REC or other electric utility had not served them prior to annexation. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes any attempt to remove or alter the eminent domain option available to municipal electric utilities in state law, or to make it financially unfeasible for municipal utilities to compensate rural electric cooperatives or other electric utilities for serving future customers who reside in annexed areas where that electric utility has not provided service. LE-5. Statutory Approval Timelines Issue: Cities since 1995 have been required to act on written requests relating to zoning, septic systems, the expansion of Metropolitan Urban Service Areas (MUSA), and other land-use applications in accordance with a statutory time period generally referred to as the 60-day rule. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 15.99, state and local government agencies must approve or deny a permit within a statutory timeframe. Failure by the agency to issue a specific denial of the application is deemed an approval. Minn. Stat. § 15.99 does not directly address whether an appeal of a decision triggers an extension or is part of an original zoning request that must be handled within the 60- or 120-day time period. In a 2004 Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, the court found that a zoning application is not approved or denied for the purposes of Minn. Stat. § 15.99 until the city has resolved all appeals challenging the application. Moreno v. City of Minneapolis, 676 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). According to the court, an appeal is not a request for a permit, license or other governmental approval; therefore, it does not trigger a new 60-day time period. Under this interpretation, a decision League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 55 rendered by a zoning board or planning commission is not the final approval or denial of an application if the city allows an appeal to the city council. This court decision is problematic for a couple of reasons. Forcing cities to further condense the process for considering planning and zoning applications will make it more difficult to gather public input and leave less time for thoughtful deliberation by zoning boards and planning commissions. It may also provide an incentive for cities to extend the original 60-day period in every instance in order to build-in adequate time to consider possible appeals. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued another 60-day rule decision that held that an application to the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission for a certificate of appropriateness was a “written request related to zoning,” and therefore was subject to the automatic approval provision of the 60-day rule. 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W. 2d 287 (Minn. 2013). This opinion creates ambiguity and uncertainty about what permit applications are subject to the law. While the Legislature has clarified some aspects of this law, additional modifications are necessary to assist cities in providing accurate and timely responses to applicants and to allow adequate time for public input. Furthermore, as city staff and financial resources are increasingly limited, flexibility in the length of approval timeline requirements may be needed at the local level. Response: The Legislature should repeal or amend Minn. Stat. § 15.99. If repeal is unlikely, amendments should: a) Increase the initial time limit to 90 days or have the language in Minn. Stat. § 15.99 apply as the default requirement only in cases where permitting bodies have not established an independent approval timeline; b) Clarify that approval does not abrogate the need for approvals under other applicable federal, state or local requirements; c) Provide appeal rights to adjacent property owners; d) Clarify that, if requests are to be decided by a board, commission or other agent of a governmental agency, and the decision of the board, commission or other agent is adopted subject to appeal to the governing body of the agency, then the agency may extend the 60-day time limit to resolve the appeal; and e) More clearly define that the phrase “related to zoning” refers to a traditional land use decision such as rezoning, conditional use permits, and variances. LE-6. Maintenance of Retaining Walls Adjacent to Public Rights of Way Issue: The Minnesota Constitution grants cities the power to “levy and collect assessments for local improvements upon property benefited hereby.” Retaining walls are one of the many improvements that a city is authorized to make on behalf of its citizens, and Minnesota’s special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, authorizes cities to charge special assessments on properties that are benefitted by an improvement. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the city of Minneapolis had a nondelegable duty of lateral support to a property owner with a retaining wall abutting a city sidewalk. Howell v. City of Minneapolis, 2013 WL 1707759 (April 22, 2013). A League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 56 subsequent jury found that the city created the need for lateral support when it built the street and sidewalk adjacent to the property, making the city responsible for the maintenance the retaining wall, despite the fact that the property is clearly benefitted by the retaining wall. The special assessment statute anticipates the need for cities to create retaining walls when making public improvements, and this holding could create significant costs for cities forced to repair and maintain retaining walls that benefit a single property. A choice by a developer or previous property owner to build a retaining wall to improve the value or usefulness of property may appear to be necessary today, but determining who first created the need for lateral support in the past can involve costly and time- consuming historical research that may not reveal a clear answer. Response: The Legislature should amend the special assessment statute so that retaining walls needed to facilitate public improvements are treated the same as other local improvements. In cases where retaining walls located along public rights of way or within drainage and utility easements separate public improvements from adjacent properties, the Legislature should establish a rebuttable presumption that the need for lateral support was created by the property owner. LE-7. Development Disputes Issue: State law is clear that fees collected under Minn. Stat. ch. 462 are eligible for judicial review in the event of dispute. The Legislature recently limited the timeframe during which an aggrieved party may challenge planning and zoning fees to 60 days after approval of an application. However, the law is not clear about what notice requirements to the municipality are necessary, relative to the timing for a person aggrieved by an ordinance or decision under the municipal planning act to seek review. Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. § 462.361 to establish a 60- day time limitation in which an aggrieved person may bring an action against the municipality. LE-8. Foreclosure and Neighborhood Stabilization Issue: Cities dedicate scarce resources to address public safety and maintenance challenges associated with foreclosed, vacant, and under-maintained homes. Left unaddressed, these properties destabilize neighborhoods, depress neighborhood property values, and potential increase the costs of municipal services. Cities’ revenue also continue to decline due to delinquent utility payments and property tax payments, as well as added costs for nuisance abatements. Although the number of those mortgage foreclosures has stabilized somewhat since the peak of the recession in 2008, issues surrounding community recovery are still ongoing. State and local governments can play an important role in spurring reinvestment in struggling neighborhoods, but without additional resources to address the variety and costly impacts of foreclosures and vacant properties, cities cannot maintain or increase those activities to meet local needs. The federal government has provided funds for neighborhood stabilization, but such funds are limited in eligible uses and scope, and they are only available to a limited number of cities. Contracts for deed have been used to successfully buy and sell thousands of homes around Minnesota. However, some property owners use contracts for deed as an League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 57 alternative to a traditional lease, even though the purchaser has no intention of buying the home. Some communities have encountered a situation where a property owner is buying many homes in a community, then selling them on contract for deed. This can allow a person to essentially act as a landlord while evading a city’s rental inspection and rental licensing process, while the buyers lose the traditional legal rights and protections as tenants. Many view it as a way to rent the property and may not be aware of it being a contract for deed. Numerous problems arise for cities and neighborhoods when property owners are acting essentially as renters. It is difficult to determine who is responsible for maintaining the property or for paying utility bills and property taxes, and cities may not be able to inspect substandard properties if they are not subject to a lease agreement. In some situations, property owners may wish to have a renter be the responsible party for utility bills and utilize contract for deed arrangements to have the person living on the property be the responsible party. The property may also not be recorded at the county for homesteading purposes if the buyer is not aware of the formal change in ownership that results from a contract for deed. In recent years, private equity companies have begun purchasing large numbers of single-family homes to convert to residential rental uses. The impacts of large a number of acquisitions by private equity companies on cities, housing stock, and the rental and home ownership market are not yet fully understood by local, state, and federal units of government. Possible issues that may need further exploration include proposed disposition strategies for such a large number of properties and how that may affect the local housing market. Response: The Legislature should: a) Secure increased state and federal resources and provide financing tools to help cover city costs associated with foreclosed and /or vacant properties, community revitalization strategies, and community investment, including revenue sources for programs that support foreclosure mitigation, homeownership counseling, and expanded homeownership opportunities and are sustainable. b) Allow cities to take actions necessary to protect foreclosed and/or vacant homes from damage and to help preserve property values in neighborhoods where concentrations of such conditions are present, including an expedited process to address nuisance properties. c) Reexamine the Contract for Deed statutes to determine whether additional protections are necessary to prevent property owners from evading responsibilities of a landlord, and provide local jurisdictions resources to allow for education of future buyers and sellers in contract for deed arrangements. d) Support local authority for cities to collect all delinquent taxes, utility bills, liens, and assessments on foreclosed, vacant, boarded and/or tax forfeited properties. e) Improve notification to cities, and consistency in the information available to cities, when a property is in the foreclosure process and vacated. f) Support coordinated responses to prevent foreclosures, activate and guide private investment and home purchases, and support distressed neighborhoods. g) Study and monitor the impacts on the housing market of single-family home League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 58 acquisition by private equity companies. h) Re-enact a program similar to “This Old House” to allow owners of qualifying single-family homes or multi-unit rental properties to defer the increase in tax capacity from repairs or improvements to their homestead property as an incentive for cities to maintain housing stock, including, but not limited to re- occupying and homesteading foreclosed and vacant homes. In order to provide potential opportunities in more communities, the program’s age limit qualifications for a homestead property should be updated to include properties that are at least 30 years old. i) Support programs that provide resources to cities for rehabilitation or new construction of single-family homes, such as the Community Impact Fund and the Community Fix Up Program currently administered through MN Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). LE-9. Resources for Affordable Housing Issue: Cities, along with local housing officials, are concerned about the need for proactive commitment at the state level to aid cities to meet demand for affordable housing that is sensitive to local conditions, emerging trends, and changing demographics. This includes meeting the needs of an aging population and ensuring a wide range of lifecycle housing options that allow seniors of all incomes to stay in their community, addressing racial disparity gaps in housing, and responding to emerging trends, such as the need to preserve naturally occurring (unsubsidized) affordable housing. The League also recognizes that federal, state and local governments all have a role to play in meeting affordable housing needs, overcoming barriers to housing stability such as high market prices, eviction, and foreclosure, and responding to problems caused by vacant homes and the increase in rental properties that are the result of foreclosure. In 2017, the Minnesota Legislature passed legislation to provide local governments with the ability to establish a local affordable housing trust fund as a tool to help meet affordable housing needs. Since the Fair Housing Act of 1968, local government has been obligated to promote and reduce barriers to fair housing and equal opportunity. Households with Section 8 housing choice vouchers face many barriers to securing housing in the private rental market, especially when rental vacancy rates are low. Currently rental vacancy rates are at a historic low in much of the state. As a result, many families and individuals may be unable to use their Section 8 housing choice vouchers and thus unable to secure safe, decent and affordable housing. In December of 2017, Governor Mark Dayton announced the establishment of a Task Force on Housing to study the housing system throughout the state and craft recommendations to increase access to safe and affordable rental housing, create more pathways to homeownership, and improve housing stability and opportunity. In August of 2018, the recommendations of the Task Force were released, including 30 specific recommendations to help achieve six goals, including: commit to homes as a priority; preserve the homes we have; build more homes; increase home stability; link homes and services; and support and strengthen homeownership. Response: The Legislature should: League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 59 a) Support the affordable housing priorities of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), which include making resources and methods available to maintain and improve existing affordable homes, especially housing stock that is aging such as naturally occurring (unsubsidized) affordable housing. b) Provide stable and long term funding, including but not limited to dedicated funding sources, for Minnesota Housing and other affordable housing programs, including those that allow flexibility for cities to create partnerships and leverage resources with private and public entities, such as: capital investment funding for affordable and public housing, funding for supportive services and programs that address homelessness and reduce barriers to stable housing and homeownership, a tax credit contribution fund or a state low- income housing tax credit to help rebuild the state’s partnership with local governments in the development of homeownership, and multi-family rental assistance and housing renovation programs. c) Consider establishing a program to address immediate needs throughout the year to provide a match for new or existing city-supported affordable housing projects. This could include matching funds, issued on a timeline that is consistent with local budgeting processes, for local revenues allocated to a local affordable housing trust fund. d) Substantially increase long-term funding for the Economic Development & Challenge Fund to leverage local private and public resources to develop workforce rental and single-family homes. e) Support legislation to provide sales, use, and transaction tax exemptions or reductions for development and production of affordable housing and use state bond proceeds for land banking and trusts as well as rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing. f) Provide funding and financing tools to cities to create affordable senior housing for our aging population. g) Provide funding and financing tools to cities to create affordable housing and prevent foreclosure for veterans. h) Support for policy, programs and funding to reduce the racial gap in homeownership rates, such as targeted homeownership capacity building and homebuyer assistance. i) Support resources to assist communities to reduce barriers to and promote fair housing and equal opportunity. j) Support housing stability for renters through policies that mitigate the impact of or reduce evictions filed and provide additional funding for the Section 8 housing choice voucher or other rental assistance programs and financial, tax, and/or other incentives for rental property owners to participate in these programs. k) Support the goals of the Governor’s Housing Task Force, and, to the extent that local governments are impacted by legislation which moves specific Task Force recommendations forward, the legislature should ensure that cities have a seat at the table. LE-10. Energy Efficiency Improvement Requirements for Housing Issue: Rising energy costs have brought attention to the poor energy efficiency of League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 60 many private residences and multi-family properties, especially in older housing stock. The affordability of housing could be severely impacted by continued increases in home energy costs. Improvements in the energy efficiency of housing would improve the affordability of local housing options and would help achieve state energy demand and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. The challenge is how best to achieve that result. Legislative discussions have suggested that minimum energy efficiency improvements could be added as point of sale requirements, including energy use disclosure and basic renovations such as improved attic insulation levels, window caulking and other air sealing, or improved light fixtures. While the goals of such a program are laudable, there are a number of concerns for how this would actually be accomplished in individual cities. Most cities do not, for example, have point of sale inspections. There will also be cases where the building could be structurally unable to meet high attic insulation requirements, such as with manufactured housing or with older houses with very little attic space. There are also concerns that the cost of meeting these energy requirements could result in homeowners being reluctant to sell their houses because of the expense of the improvements that would be required to meet new standards or property owners passing on the cost of upgrades to tenants. Increased exposure to educational information, such as increased access to energy audits and more familiarity with and access to programs that finance energy efficiency projects could increase adoption of energy efficiency improvements. Electric utilities provide successful, cost-effective energy efficiency programs, have a customer relationship with homeowners, a regulatory requirement to meet energy demand reduction goals through conservation spending, and access to technical expertise that can take into account variations in building age and construction. Cities could, however, play a strong role in increasing public exposure to approved educational materials and providing incentives through the use of other local financing support options for property owners, such as grants, loans, a Property Assessed Clean Energy (P.A.C.E.) program, and other financing tools. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities agrees that there is a need to improve the energy efficiency of residential building stock to reduce energy consumption and improve the affordability and livability of housing. The state should focus its efforts on improving educational programs and on improving the use of the existing statewide Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) and similar programs, and provide property owners with technical and financial support for weatherization and energy efficiency improvements. Further, the state should work to make residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (P.A.C.E.) programs viable for local governments. Cities should use their communication tools, such as newsletters, web sites, and staff communications to promote these efforts and to help link property owners to educational materials and program resources. Additionally, cities could be incentivized to adopt strategies to disclose energy usage data for building owners to identify options for cost-efficient energy improvements. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 61 LE-11. In-Home Day Care Facilities Issue: There are restrictions on the ability of a city to regulate licensed day care facilities. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 7, states that certain licensed residential facilities and day care facilities must be considered a permitted single-family use for zoning purposes. The restriction is designed to protect “in-home” daycare facilities, but the law applies even if the facility is not the primary residence of the day care provider. This creates a loophole for providers to use a single-family home as a commercial daycare facility, which might not otherwise be allowable under a city zoning ordinance. Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 7, to clarify that a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons is considered a permitted single-family use only if the license holder owns or rents and resides in the home. LE-12. Residential Programs Issue: Minnesota’s deinstitutionalization policy seeks to ensure that all people can live in housing that maximizes community integration. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6a. states that “persons with disabilities should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinance or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings.” Minnesota cities support inclusion of people with and without disabilities in their communities, but these policies are best implemented with minimal encroachments on municipal zoning authority and positive working relationships between cities, care providers, and the state. On one hand, treating persons with disabilities differently generally raises questionable issues of disparate treatment with the Federal Fair Housing Act. On the other hand, without some regulation, cities are powerless to protect individuals with disabilities from a clustering of residential programs within one neighborhood. As the Department of Justice has stated, while density regulations are generally suspect, “if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes, that could adversely affect individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the objective of integrating persons with disabilities into the community.” (Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.) To this end, and in upholding a state and local dispersal requirement, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the requirement was designed to ensure that people with disabilities “needing residential treatment will not be forced into enclaves of treatment facilities that would replicate and thus perpetuate the isolation resulting from institutionalization.” Familystyle of St. Paul, Inc. v. St. Paul, 923 F.2d 91, 95 (8th Cir. 1991). City authority to regulate the locations of residential programs is limited by state statute and the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), although Minn. Stat. § 245A.11, subd. 4, prohibits the Commissioner of Human Services from granting an initial license to a residential program of six or fewer people within 1,320 feet of an existing residential program in cities of the first class. In 2015, Minn. Stat. § 245A.11, subd. 4, was amended to clarify that the Commissioner of Human Services is required to approve licenses for “community residential settings” within 1,320 feet of existing residential programs. A “community residential setting” is commonly known as adult foster care. While this was the original intent of the legislature, statutory terms changed over League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 62 the years; this amendment was to make various statutory references consistent. Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential programs have appropriate care and supervision, and that neighborhoods and residents of residential programs are not negatively impacted by high concentrations of these types of programs. As it stands now, there is nothing preventing clustering of residential programs in most cities in the state. Cities want to be part of the solution, and more than anything cities desire to be, and should be, partners in serving the policies of deinstitutionalization. Cities have an interest in, and are in the best position, to preserve a balance in residential neighborhoods between residential programs and all other uses. Because Minnesota cities are committed to inclusion of all individuals, it is in the best interest of the state, care providers, and those individuals served, that all parties include cities as partners before opening a residential program to best plan for community integration. Response: Cities should maintain the statutory authority to require agencies, as well as licensed and registered providers that operate residential programs, to notify the city before properties are operated. Cities should be provided with the necessary contact information after a residential program is licensed or registered. Providers applying to operate residential programs should be required to contact the city to be informed of applicable local regulations. Finally, licensing or registering authorities must be responsible for removing any residents incapable of living in such an environment, particularly if they become a danger to themselves or others. The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. § 245A.11, subd. 4, to allow for appropriate non-concentration standards for all types of cities to prevent clustering. LE-13. Inclusionary Housing Issue: Provisions in current state statute (Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 11) allowing cities to enter into development agreements for the inclusion of a portion of the units in the development to be affordable for low- or moderate-income families have been a source of conflict between cities and housing developers. Cities are concerned builders that view this statute as a restriction on local authority to adopt policies that promote availability of housing affordable to those who are unable to purchase or rent housing at price points that the market alone provides. Response: The Legislature should: a) Strengthen and clarify cities’ authority to carry out policies that offer developers a range of incentives in return for including a designated number of affordable units in their projects. b) Identify strategies to ensure long-term affordability of rental and owner- occupied housing produced as a result of such policies and practices. c) Focus state housing policy to support for local assessment of housing needs and direct additional state resources and the full exercise of local authority to increase development of affordable rental units and access to entry-level, owner-occupied housing. d) Support voluntary measures to encourage cities to adopt and carry out land-use plans, activities, and subdivision regulations aimed at providing for construction and marketing of housing where a portion League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 63 of all new units are affordable to lower-income households. LE-14. Community Land Trusts Issue: The increasing price of land available for housing development, particularly for retaining affordability of housing for lower- income households, is a concern throughout the state. Creating more permanently affordable, owner-occupied housing depends heavily on maximizing the cost- effectiveness of taxpayer investments. The Legislature has previously appropriated funding and granted the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency authority to assist cities with funding community land trusts (CLTs) for affordable housing. Response: The Legislature should support continuation of the land trust capacity- building program and provide capital start-up funds so community land trusts can continue to offer gap financing, interest rate write-downs, predevelopment financing, and financial underwriting. The Legislature should also support efforts by the Minnesota Community Land Trust Coalition to develop property tax valuation to lower property taxes for sales-price-restricted properties enrolled in CLT programs. LE-15. Telecommunications and Information Technology Issue: Telecommunications and information technology is essential public infrastructure for the efficient, equitable, and affordable delivery of local government services to residents and businesses. Telecommunications includes voice, video, data, and services delivered over cable, telephone, fiber-optic, wireless, and all other platforms. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports a balanced approach to telecommunications policy that allows new technologies to flourish while preserving local regulatory authority. Regulations and oversight of telecommunications services are important prerogatives for local government to advance and balance community interests, including ensuring public safety, maintaining high quality basic services that meet local needs, spurring economic development, and providing affordable rates to all consumers. Policies should not diminish local authority to manage public rights- of-way, to zone, to collect reimbursement and reasonable compensation for the use of public assets, or to work cooperatively with the private sector. The League opposes the adoption of state and federal policies that restrict cities’ ability to finance, construct, and operate telecommunications networks. LE-16. Broadband Issue: High-speed Internet is essential infrastructure needed by cities to compete in a global economy. Yet many communities do not have access to broadband at affordable prices. High fixed costs, low density, and short-term return-on-investment thresholds for private sector providers contribute to the lack of broadband across the state. Investing in universal broadband access has substantial local and regional economic benefits for communities of all sizes. Cities and other local units of government are facilitating the deployment of broadband services to increase connectivity, reliability, availability, and affordability for residents and businesses through a variety of models, including municipal broadband and public-private partnerships. However, attempts have been made to restrict cities from providing League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 64 telecommunications services, particularly in unserved or underserved areas. Recent court cases have overturned interpretation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that states may not limit the extension of municipal broadband services from one city to another. Due to the high costs of broadband infrastructure, the state has expanded its role to identify and formulate tools to expand broadband access. The Office of Broadband Development within the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) created in 2013 formally established a partnership between the state and local communities to deploy high-speed Internet in unserved and underserved areas. The Office supports broadband expansion through broadband mapping and managing the state’s broadband grant program. Additional state action occurred during the 2016 legislative session when the legislature reestablished state speed and adoption goals under Minn. Stat. § 237.012. In addition to the state’s focus on extending broadband to unserved areas, Minnesota must also be on the cutting edge for next-generation broadband investments. Response: To promote economic development and achieve state broadband goals, the Legislature, Governor’s office, and state agencies should: a) Identify and implement actions for the state to reach and maintain a position in the top five states for broadband speed that is universally accessible to residents and businesses; b) Make significant investments to the Border-to-Border Broadband Grant Program and continue to encourage public/private sector collaboration; c) Support measures to authorize and encourage cities and other local units of government to play a direct role in providing broadband services; d) Remove barriers to the exercise of local authority to provide such services, including repeal of Minn. Stat. § 237.19, that requires a supermajority voter approval for the provision of local phone service by a local unit of government; e) Offer incentives to private sector service providers to respond to local or regional needs and to collaborate with cities and other public entities to deploy broadband infrastructure capable of delivering sufficient bandwidth and capacity to meet immediate and future local needs; f) Adopt policies which seek to position Minnesota as a state of choice for testing next-generation broadband technologies; g) Affirm that cities have the authority to partner with private entities to finance broadband infrastructure using city bonding authority; h) Remove barriers, restrict anti- competitive practices, and prevent predatory action that prevent or impede cities, municipal utilities, schools, libraries, and other public sector entities from collaborating and deploying broadband infrastructure and services at the local and regional level; i) Continuously update and verify comprehensive statewide street-level mapping of broadband services to identify underserved areas and connectivity issues; and j) Recognize the crucial role of local government in the work of the Governor’s Broadband Task Force and fund the Office of Broadband Development to help achieve significantly higher broadband speeds and to ensure that robust and League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 65 affordable Internet connectivity is widely available. On the federal level, the League urges Congress to adopt laws restoring the ability of municipalities to extend beyond their borders to serve unserved and underserved areas. LE-17. Competitive Cable Franchising Authority Issue: Despite claims made by some actors in the cable industry, studies and evidence to date do not support that state franchising is the solution for competition, lower consumer rates, and improved customer service. Unlike the exercise of local franchising authority, state franchising models frequently make no provision for staffing at the state level or for effective resolution of consumer complaints. The transmission of video signals, regardless of how they are transported, remains subject to local franchising authority. Maintaining local franchising most effectively creates and preserves agreements that guarantee broad access to services throughout the community, ensuring there is no digital divide for access to available additional services such as access to IP voice and high- speed Internet via infrastructure that also delivers video programming services. Response: State policy should maintain local cable franchise authority and oversight of the rights-of-way, as well as ensure franchise agreements reflect new technology, and are reasonably tailored to the technical and operational differences among providers and communities. Independent studies clearly demonstrate that statewide franchising does not increase direct competition to incumbent cable franchisees. In Minnesota, there are markets throughout the state with two franchised cable service providers, which is further proof that state cable franchising is neither necessary nor warranted in Minnesota. The Legislature, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Congress should also continue to recognize, support and maintain the exercise of local franchising authority to encourage increased competition between incumbent cable system operators and new wireline competitive video service providers including: a) Maintaining provisions in Minn. Stat. ch. 238 that establish and uphold local franchising authority, including the authority to receive a gross revenues based franchise fee; b) Refraining from adopting any FCC rule changes that would restrict existing local authority to charge for and control access to public rights-of- way by all video and cable service providers; c) Clarifying local authority to charge fees on providers to ensure the provision of public, educational, and governmental (PEG) programming, to require the provision of video channels and video streaming for PEG programming with video and audio quality equivalent to that of the local broadcast stations, and ensuring programming is accessible and searchable by all residents of the local authority through detailed Electronic Programming Guide listings that are equivalent to that of local broadcast stations; d) Providing for continued local government access to capacity on institutional networks (I-Nets) provided by local cable system operators for public safety communications, libraries, schools, and other public institutions to use League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 66 state-of-the-art network applications; and e) Strengthening local authority to enforce customer service standards and transparency in pricing. LE-18. Right-of-Way Management Issue: Cities hold local rights-of-way in trust for the public as an increasingly scarce and valuable asset. As demand increases for use of rights-of-way for underground wired and overhead wireless facilities and sites for wireless communications, cities must coordinate the use of this resource among competing uses and to manage the use of PROWs for delivery of essential municipal utility services. Local management responsibilities vary and are site specific, underscoring the necessity for maintaining local authority. Minnesota’s Telecommunications Right-of- Way User Law was amended during the 2017 Session with legislation creating a separate permitting system for placement of small wireless facilities on city-owned structures in the public right-of-way. The new law clarified that wireless providers are telecommunications right-of-way users and maintained cities' right-of-way management authority, but limitations were imposed on cities' compensation through rent and timelines for processing small wireless facilities permits. Response: Minn. Stat. §§ 237.162-.163 worked well for many years, but Minnesota was a part of a nationwide effort by wireless providers to pass laws providing them with easier access to public rights-of-way and city-owned infrastructure. While Minnesota's law maintains more local control than those passed in many other states, the League of Minnesota Cities opposes efforts to further restrict local government authority over the public right-of-way. Furthermore, the Federal Communications Commission is undergoing review of Telecommunications Act rules and policies related to local government regulatory authority. State and federal policymakers and regulators should: a) Uphold local authority to manage and protect public rights-of-way, including reasonable zoning and subdivision regulation and the exercise of local police powers; b) Recognize that cities have a paramount role in developing, locating, siting, and enforcing utility construction and safety standards; c) Support local authority to require reimbursement and compensation from service providers for managing use of public rights-of-way; d) Maintain city authority to franchise gas, electric, cable, telecommunications and broadband services, open video systems and all other wireline programming platforms and services and to collect franchise fees and alternative revenue streams to support maintenance and management of the traveled portion of the PROW and other public services of importance to communities; e) Encourage a collaborative process with stakeholders, including cities, to determine any revised standards if needed; f) Recognize that as rights-of-way become more crowded, the costs of disrupting critical infrastructure become evident and the exercise of local authority to manage competing demands and ensure public safety in the PROWs becomes increasingly important; g) Ensure the removal of abandoned equipment and accompanying support League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 67 structures by the service providers from the public right-of-way; h) Maintain the courts as the primary forum for resolving disputes over the exercise of such authority; and i) Maintain existing local authority to review and approve or deny plans for installation or relocation of additional wires or cables on in-place utility poles. In the alternative, cities should have broader authority to require the underground placement of new and/or existing services at the cost of the utility or telecommunications provider. LE-19. Wireless Infrastructure and Equipment Siting Issue: Demand for wireless communication service has increased requests by private and public sector providers to site additional towers, antennas, small cells and other facilities in cities. It is anticipated that applications to install small cell wireless facilities and distributed antenna systems (DAS) will continue to grow as technology evolves over time. Despite Minnesota’s new law creating a special process for the siting of small wireless facilities, maintaining cities’ local zoning authority and police power to manage and coordinate the siting of these facilities continue is necessary and appropriate. Response: Cities must continue to exercise full authority to consider public health, safety, and welfare concerns in responding to requests to site, upgrade or alter wireless facilities. The Legislature should not place further restrictions on city authority to manage the siting of wireless facilities in the public right-of- way nor enact compensation restrictions that would result in local government subsidization of wireless providers. Furthermore, cities must have recourse to require removal by the provider of equipment deemed abandoned. LE-20. County Economic Development Authorities Issue: The 2005 Legislature authorized all counties outside the metropolitan area to establish county economic development authorities (EDAs). Minn. Stat. § 469.1082 provides specificity on certain process and limitations issues, including the ability of cities to prohibit the county EDA from operating within the city as well as within an agreed-upon urban service area or within a distance approved during the formation of the county EDA. County EDA activity in areas surrounding cities will directly impact the adjacent city in terms of service provision and taxes. Response: The Legislature should require city approval for proposed county EDA activities within two miles of a city. LE-21. Local Appropriations to Economic Development Organizations Issue: Cities and towns are allowed to appropriate up to $50,000 per year from general fund revenue to an incorporated development society or organization for “promoting, advertising, improving, or developing the economic and agricultural resources” of the city or town. The $50,000 cap has been in place since 1989 and places unnecessary restrictions on a city’s ability to work with non-profit development corporations. Local governments should have the flexibility to work with outside organizations if local elected officials believe it is in the best interest of their communities to do so. Such appropriations are subject to the same budgetary oversight as other government expenditures, and local League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 68 elected officials are ultimately responsible to the voters for how local tax dollars are spent. Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. § 469.191 to eliminate or increase the cap on appropriations to incorporated development societies or organizations. LE-22. Workforce Readiness Issue: It is critical for the future of our economy to prepare for new demographic trends. While population rates among communities of color are projected to increase, the unemployment rate for communities of color exceed the unemployment rate for white Minnesotans. For example, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicate that black unemployment rates are consistently two to three times higher than the unemployment rates of white Minnesotans and studies indicate that hiring bias is a substantial factor for this disparity in unemployment rates. In addition, while early work experience is a leading predictor of future success in a workplace, recent statistics from BLS show that the youth unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds is three times that of the unemployment rate for the state as a whole. Incumbent worker training and education must be an important component of Minnesota’s efforts to improve workforce readiness. By making firms and employees more competitive, incumbent worker training can increase wages, increase employment opportunities, fill skilled worker gaps, and keep jobs and employers in their communities. The Minnesota Job Skills Partnership is one proven tool that provides training to thousands of incumbent workers each year. Response: The Legislature should: a) Fully fund the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership and other workforce training programs administered by the Department of Employment and Economic Development, the Department of Human Services, and the various education agencies; b) Provide additional flexible funding to local workforce councils, including governments and educational facilities, for the purpose of upgrading the skills and productivity of the workforce, and pursue additional creative programming and funding to prepare and place underemployed and unemployed Minnesotans, as well as address the issue of those phasing out of the workplace and retiring; c) Provide additional funding for programs specifically designed to address youth employment such as career and workforce readiness programs, and employment disparities; and d) Continue to support cities that provide workforce programs that are coordinated with and complement state and regional efforts by seeking municipal approval before making any changes to those service areas. LE-23. Business Development Programs Issue: Programs such as the Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF), the Job Creation Fund (JCF), the Redevelopment Program, and contaminated site clean-up grants provide funding opportunities for communities and businesses to develop their local and regional economies. These well- utilized programs create infrastructure, revitalize property, and help businesses generate and expand jobs. Cities are key facilitators in the implementation of League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 69 economic development strategies through land use and other policies. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports continued and sustainable funding for the Minnesota Investment Fund and the Job Creation Fund to assist local communities and businesses in creating, growing, and retaining jobs. DEED should solicit input from cities about how best to implement the Fund and make adjustments to the administration of the program as necessary. The League supports Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) studying and making recommendations on methods to improve the geographic balance of recipients, perhaps by altering the required number of jobs created or developing other programmatic changes that allow all regions of the state to better prosper. LE-24. Land Recycling and Redevelopment Issue: Communities across Minnesota are faced with expensive barriers to re-using property. These roadblocks include deteriorating, obsolete, and vacant structures, and contaminated land. Larger scale redevelopment projects often require the purchase and assembly of multiple, smaller parcels of land that are not suitable for development on their own. Cities and development authorities may need to purchase land over a period of years and hold them for later development, reducing the effectiveness of traditional financing tools that require immediate development. Such barriers pose significant problems for cities seeking to re-use existing infrastructure, maintain and improve property tax base, provide jobs and housing opportunities, and preserve historic structures. Land recycling activities are particularly costly because significant remediation must occur before private-sector interest can be generated. Exacerbating this situation, the land recycling programs administered by the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and the Metropolitan Council programs continue to be underfunded. Response: In recognition of the unique needs of land recycling projects statewide, the Legislature should increase funding for the statewide redevelopment account. The League of Minnesota Cities would also support the creation of a land assembly grant or loan program to assist cities and economic development authorities assemble small parcels for redevelopment. The League supports competitive programs administered by DEED with both bonding and general fund appropriations that distribute the funds equitably between greater Minnesota and the metro area. The Legislature should continue its support and increase funding levels for state and regional programs to assist in contamination cleanup and brownfields remediation efforts. The State should recognize that the rehabilitation of land due to obsolescence or incompatible land uses is a component of redevelopment. The Legislature should amend the definition of redevelopment district in Minn. Stat. 469.174, subd. 10, to include the obsolescence and incompatible land uses included in a renewal and renovation district (Minn. Stat. § 469.174, subd. 10a), thereby providing cities with more flexible tools to address land recycling and redevelopment. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 70 The Legislature should also revive a program similar to “This Old Shop” (Minn. Stat. § 273.11, subd. 19), which would allow cities greater flexibility in targeting commercial development and redevelopment. The Legislature should consider enacting authority that would provide a tax deferral on improvements to commercial buildings, including those located in designated rehabilitation or historic preservation districts. The program’s age limit qualifications under Minn. Stat 273.11, subd. 19, should be modified to include properties that are at least 30 years old. LE-25. Development Authority Levy Limits Issue: Under Minn. Stat. § 469.107, § 469.033, and § 469.053, Economic Development Authorities (EDAs), Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (HRAs) and port authority levies for economic development activities are capped. These limits can hinder the planning of future development. Response: The Legislature should repeal levy limits or increase the levying authority for EDA, HRA, and port authority activities in Minn. Stat. ch. 469. LE-26. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Issue: TIF is the most important tool available to fund community development and redevelopment efforts. Over time, the TIF law has become increasingly complex as the Legislature seeks to provide cities with the resources to grow the state’s economy while maintaining limits on the use of property taxes. Cities need greater flexibility to use TIF for community and economic development that support a city’s residents and businesses. Further restrictions of TIF would render the tool less effective and will hinder local efforts to support job creation, housing, redevelopment and remediation. One component of the redevelopment TIF law (Minn. Stat. 469.174, subd. 10) requires that more than 50 percent of the buildings in a proposed redevelopment district be deemed “structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance” before a district can be established. This makes small districts with two properties particularly difficult to establish. Response: The Legislature should not enact future TIF law restrictions, rather the Legislature should: a) Amend Minn. Stat. § 469.1763, subd. 4, to clarify that tax increment pooling limitations are calculated on a cumulative basis. b) Modify Minn. Stat. 469.174, subd. 10, to allow a redevelopment district to be established where only 50 percent of the buildings are required to be structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. c) Clarify that expenditures for the necessary maintenance of properties within TIF districts are an allowable use of tax increment under Minn. Stat. § 469.176, subd. 4; d) Allow term extensions for redevelopment districts which are taking longer to develop; e) Amend Minn. Stat. § 469.1763, subd. 3, to eliminate the “Five-year Rule” for districts that are taking longer to develop; f) Amend Minn. Stat. § 469.174, subd. 25, to provide time limits on the "deemed increment" created by land League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 71 sales, leases and loans, and allow authorities greater flexibility in the use of lease revenues to fund ongoing operations; g) Expand the use of TIF to assist in the development of technological infrastructure and products, biotechnology, research, multi-modal transportation and transit-oriented development, restoration of designated historic structures, non- retail commercial projects, and non- wetland areas where unstable/non- buildable soils exist; h) Increase the ability of TIF to facilitate redevelopment and housing activities; i) Modify the housing district income qualification level requirements to allow the levels to vary according to individual communities; j) Encourage compact development and consider reauthorization of compact development TIF districts with modifications to increase their effectiveness; k) Discourage any statutory mechanisms that directly or indirectly decrease the impact of city redevelopment and economic development projects; l) Simplify the substandard building test to resolve ambiguities and reduce the continued threats of litigation; m) Create an exception to the interfund loan resolution requirement in Minn. Stat. 469.178, subd. 7, to authorize the development authority to delegate to a staff person the ability to set the terms and conditions of an interfund loan. n) Amend the definition of redevelopment district under the TIF Act to include the obsolescence and incompatible land uses included in a renewal and renovation district, thereby providing cities with more flexible tools to address land recycling and redevelopment. LE-27. Property Tax Abatement Authority Issue: In an effort to increase the number of development tools available, the 1997 Legislature authorized local units of government to grant property tax abatements. Although tax increment financing (TIF) continues to be the primary financing mechanism for local development projects, tax abatements provide cities with an important, additional economic development tool. Recognizing the need for municipal development tools, the 2008 Legislature expanded the abatement authority by converting the limit on abatements from ten percent of the current tax levy to ten percent of net tax capacity. In order to provide maximum benefits and recognize local decision-making, tax abatements should have less restrictive funding caps, financing terms, and authorized uses. The tax abatement law requires that a political subdivision may only approve an abatement after holding a public meeting with a minimum of 10 days published public notice. When more than one political subdivision abates property taxes for a development project, there must be separate notices and hearings for each subdivision. This requirement can be particularly burdensome for programs designed to develop multiple properties over an extended period of time. If one political subdivision could be designated as the lead entity for purposes of the notice and hearing requirements, such projects could be made more efficient without sacrificing public transparency. Property tax abatements should not be considered a replacement for TIF. Response: In light of current economic conditions existing property tax League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 72 abatement authority should be strengthened. The Legislature should: a) Expand the abatement authority to allow abatement revenues to be used for economic development activities such as workforce readiness and assistance programs, and technology infrastructure improvements; b) Develop a state fund to facilitate state participation in abatement projects by allowing the state property tax to be abated; c) Increase funding caps under Minn. Stat. § 469.1813, subd. 8 and duration limits under Minn. Stat. § 469.1813, subd. 6; and d) Amend Minn. Stat. § 469.1813, subd. 5, to create a streamlined notice and hearing requirement for multi- jurisdictional tax abatement projects. LE-28. Opportunity Zones Issue: The Opportunity Zones program is a new community development program established by Congress in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to encourage long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities nationwide. The Opportunity Zones program provides a tax incentive for investors to re-invest their unrealized capital gains into Opportunity Funds that are dedicated to investing into Opportunity Zones as designated by the chief executives of every state and territory in the United States. The tax incentive is available for up to ten years. As the chief executive of the state of Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton designated 128 census tracts across the state as Opportunity Zones, but beyond the responsibility for this designation the state does not have an additional role in the implementation of the Act. As the United States Treasury Department is expected to release rules and regulations related to the implementation, there are many unknowns about the impact the Act will have on communities across the state. It is anticipated that the Act may be a useful tool in spurring development in low-income communities and could help with business development and jobs; there are also questions about what impact the Act will have on the residents that live and businesses that operate, in these communities today. For example, while development may have positive impacts such as increasing tax base or job opportunities, robust development could have unintended consequences such as displacement of current residents and businesses. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities urges the federal government to seek regular input from communities that are designated as Opportunity Zones regarding how the tool is being used, whether the tool is encouraging new development opportunities, and how community members who live in the Zones are impacted, such as through a local advisory board made up of residents, businesses, and other stakeholders located in the designated census tracts. The Federal Government should seek input from local communities throughout the implementation of the rules and regulations and consider necessary amendments and adjustments as needed in response to potential questions or concerns raised by the communities whose residents, workers, and businesses will be experiencing the changes that ensue in the Zones. The State of Minnesota should utilize community development resources to stimulate investment in Opportunity Zones and adopt policies that ensure that League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 73 local residents, workers and businesses benefit from the investments. LE-29. Revisions to the OSA Audit Function Issue: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 469.1771, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) is responsible for tax increment financing (TIF) oversight. As part of its review of TIF districts, the OSA identifies alleged violations of the TIF laws and issues noncompliance notices to TIF authorities. In recent years, a number of cities have received letters of inquiry from the OSA that raise questions about practices long- accepted by the OSA or limit statutory definitions that have not been amended by the legislature for over a decade. The audit power in Minn. Stat. § 469.1771 is necessary to ensure that individual cities comply with the TIF statutes, but is not effective in clarifying the legislative intent of the TIF statutes. In addition, the TIF statute requires that authorities respond to noncompliance notices within 60-days of receiving the notification. There is no deadline for the OSA to respond, and authorities often do not receive timely responses on the matter from the OSA. Government agencies typically have response-time deadlines, and it is appropriate for the OSA to respond by a time certain to provide finality to the audit process. Any final disposition notice must be clear about the final disposition of the matter. Finally, the statutory audit enforcement process does not create an environment where these policy questions can be fairly and sufficiently resolved. County attorneys lack the resources to prioritize TIF disputes and lack the subject matter expertise needed to analyze the merits of the OSA’s audit findings. This results in excessive deference granted to the OSA’s original audit findings. Faced with the potential loss of increment, payment of attorney fees, and small likelihood of success on the merits, cities often acquiesce to the OSA to save time and money. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities believes there should be a more defined process to establish rules or guidelines for TIF authorities with adequate input from local government officials and public finance professionals prior to their adoption. In the event that the OSA determines to issue a final noncompliance notice to a TIF authority, the Legislature should require the OSA to issue the notice within 60 days of receiving the authority’s response. Any final noncompliance notice should contain the OSA’s final position on the matter, the date upon which it forwarded the matter to the county attorney, and the next steps that are required to be taken according to state law. Upon expiration of the 60-day period, the authority should be deemed to be in compliance with the TIF laws if no final noncompliance notice is received. In order to ensure a fair process to resolve disputes over TIF findings of the OSA, the Legislature should consider whether the authority to resolve such disputes should be shifted from county attorneys to the Office of Administrative Hearings. LE-30. OSA Time Limitations Issue: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has the authority to issue noncompliance notices for every existing tax increment financing (TIF) district in the state for alleged violations of the TIF laws. This authority extends retroactively to the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 74 inception of the district. Accordingly, TIF authorities can receive noncompliance notices for alleged violations that occurred 20 or more years ago. Often, staff and record-keeping procedures have changed, and TIF authorities find it difficult to reconstruct the past in order to identify and remedy these situations. Similarly, the OSA claims the authority, based on the state’s records retention schedule, to audit TIF districts for up to 10 years after decertification, which requires cities to expend staff resources to maintain files and a working knowledge of old districts for an unreasonable period of time. Response: A reasonable timeframe within which alleged violations are identified should be established. The Legislature should reasonably restrict the OSA’s ability to issue noncompliance notices to the six-year period prior to the notice’s issuance date. The Legislature should also require the OSA to conduct any audits on decertified districts within one year of decertification. LE-31. Workforce Housing Issue: Job creation is one of the fundamental goals of economic development. When employers create new jobs through expansion or relocation there must be sufficient housing in the host community for the new workers and their families to live. In rural communities, a lack of housing stock for new workers can prevent a planned expansion or relocation, hampering job growth and economic development. The economics of building a housing development in greater Minnesota communities makes private development difficult, and workers with higher paying jobs do not qualify for traditional affordable housing. This housing gap can bring development and job growth in a community to a halt. In 2014, at the urging of cities through Minnesota, the Legislature created a workforce housing pilot program for three cities in Roseau and Pennington Counties. In 2015 the Legislature passed League- sponsored legislation that created the workforce housing development program and appropriated $4 million to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) to administer the program. Once grant awards from DEED were made, prevailing wage requirements, construction costs, and land prices have shown to lessen the effectiveness of creating more workforce housing units. It is important to ensure the appropriate resources and process exist for the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) to determine representative and accurate prevailing wage amounts in different areas across the state. The 2017 Legislature approved funding for the Workforce Housing Grant Program at $2 million each year. The program was moved from DEED to be administered by MN Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) in Minn. Stat. 469A.39 with a change in qualifications that gives preference to cities under 30,000 population (rather than 18,000 previously). The 2017 Legislature also approved a new use of TIF authority for workforce housing (Minn. Stat. § 469.174-176). In addition to requirements under Minn. State. 469.175, subd. 3, county and school boards must approve the TIF plan before it is enacted and the authority sunsets in 2027. These additional requirements specific to workforce housing TIF districts put additional barriers on workforce housing development and does not fully recognize the role of cities as the typical lead government entity on housing projects. Minn. Stat. § 469.175, subd. 2, currently requires cities to provide the county auditor League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 75 and clerk of the school board with the proposed TIF plan and an estimate of the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF district at least 30 days before the public hearing required by Minn. Stat. § 469.175, subd. 3. The county auditor and school board shall provide copies of these TIF plan materials to members of their boards. These current requirements provide sufficient notice to taxpayers and other government entities about proposed TIF districts. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports additional tools for local communities to develop workforce housing: a) MHFA should solicit input from local communities to ensure that the goals of the Workforce Housing Grant program are met, and MHFA should award funds to eligible projects as quickly and efficiently as possible; b) The Legislature should increase funding to the Housing and Job Growth Initiative to aid housing in support of job growth, and amend Minn. Stat. § 462A.33 to eliminate or increase the maximum income levels for participation in the program; and c) The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency should make administrative changes to the Housing Challenge Grant program to streamline the application process, reduce the per- unit cost of constructing affordable housing, and increase the construction of affordable rental units at 80% of median income and owner-occupied units at 115% of median income, as currently allowed by state and federal law; and d) The Legislature should pass legislation creating a workforce housing tax credit to spur development of workforce housing. e) The Legislature should scale the workforce housing grant program to account for the additional cost associated with the prevailing wage requirements. f) The Legislature should eliminate the provision in Minn. Stat. § 469.175, subd. 3, that requires the county board and school board to approve a workforce housing TIF plan before it is enacted and the Legislature should also eliminate the sunset of the workforce housing TIF authority. LE-32. Development Along Transit Corridors Issue: While the establishment of transit lines and corridors provide the impetus for economic development, there are limits to existing development tools that hinder full development of transit corridors. For example, acquisition of land outside of the line but within the corridor can be difficult, and current tools are not well-suited for the creation of public spaces, enhancement of infrastructure, and investments such as parking ramps that are necessary components of a transit-oriented development plan. In 2008 the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) was authorized to establish Transit Improvement Areas, which should complement long-term transportation planning initiatives such as MAP-21 and Minnesota GO. Transit Improvement Areas include parcels of land that are located in part within one-half mile of a transit station. A transit station is defined as a physical structure or designated area which supports the interconnection of various transportation modes, including light rail, commuter rail and bus rapid transit, and which promotes and achieves the loading, discharging and transporting of people. The commissioner of DEED may designate a League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 76 Transit Improvement Area if it will increase the effectiveness of a mass transit project by incorporating one or more modes of public transportation with commercial and housing development, as well as providing a clean and pleasant place for pedestrian use. DEED has designated over 50 Transit Improvement Areas; all but two are located in the seven- county metropolitan area. Although the language passed and was signed into law by the governor (Minn. Stat. § 469.35), there was no funding put into place to implement the new program. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities urges the Legislature to increase the ability of traditional economic development tools, including tax increment financing, tax abatement, and special service districts, to address the needs of transit-oriented development. The League encourages the Legislature to appropriate bonding and general fund dollars for revolving loans and grants to fund the TIA program. Additionally, the Legislature should consider adding park and ride facilities to the list of qualifying transportation modes, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 469.351. Because the majority of the DEED-designated Transit Improvement Areas are currently located in the seven-county metropolitan area, increased funding for this program will not be balanced between greater Minnesota and the metro area. Additional funding for this program should not change the overall balance of state funding between greater Minnesota and the seven-county metropolitan area. LE-33. Public Infrastructure Utilities Issue: Successful economic development efforts and community stability are dependent upon a city’s ability to make infrastructure investments. Current infrastructure funding options available to cities are inadequate and unsustainable. Funding pressures have been exacerbated by levy limits, unallotment and reductions in the local government aid and market value homestead credit programs. The existing special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, does not meet cities’ financing needs because of the special benefit requirement. The law also requires a bond election unless a minimum of 20 percent of such a project can be specially assessed against affected properties due to the increase in fair market value or “benefit” from the project. In practice, however, proof of increased property value to this degree of benefit can rarely be proven from regular repair or replacement of existing infrastructure such as streets or sidewalks. Alternatives to the Minn. Stat. ch. 429 methods for financing infrastructure improvements are nearly nonexistent. The Legislature has given cities the authority to operate utilities for waterworks, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers. The storm sewer authority, established in 1983, set the precedent for a workable process of charging a use fee on a utility bill for a city service infrastructure that is of value to everyone in a city. Similar to the storm sewer authority, a transportation or sidewalk utility would use technical, well-founded measurements and would equitably distribute the costs of local infrastructure services. Response: The Legislature should authorize cities to create, as a local option, additional utilities such as a transportation or sidewalk utility, that ensure funding for the maintenance of these public amenities. Additionally, whether established as a new chapter of law or added to the list of service charges in Minn. Stat. § 429.101, cities should be able to impose service charges against League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 77 property to ensure the maintenance and safety of the right of way for all Minnesotans without having to prove an increase in fair market value or having to determine whether those contributing to the utility fund are taxable or tax-exempt. Such authority would acknowledge the effects of repeated levy limits and the general funding shift from the state to local governments for building and maintaining necessary infrastructure; the benefits to all taxpayers of a properly maintained public infrastructure; and, the limitations of existing special assessment authority. LE-34. Adequate Funding for Transportation Issue: A well-coordinated state transportation policy utilizing all modes of transportation in moving passengers and freight will enhance the state economic development of new and expanding business as well as foster additional tourism opportunities. Response: More resources must be dedicated to all components of the state’s transportation system, and local units of government must have access to resources and funding tools to meet growing needs. The League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) Development of a comprehensive state transportation policy which provides an environment where all modes of transportation (motor, rail, air, water and pipeline) complement each other in moving passengers and freight within the state. b) A dedicated and sustainable state revenue source for non-municipal state aid city streets. c) The Statewide Transportation Plan 2009-2028 developed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). d) MVST distribution of 60 percent for roads and bridges and 40 percent for transit. e) A permanent increase in the gas tax. f) Indexing of the gas tax, provided there is a limit on how much the tax can be increased for inflation in a given amount of time. g) Increases in vehicle registration taxes (tab fees). h) Trunk highway bonding provided the Legislature implements reasonable restrictions on the amount of debt service the state will incur, and provided the Legislature appropriates funding to assist with local costs related to projects funded with trunk highway bonds. i) General obligation bonding for local roads and bridges, particularly for routes of regional significance. j) A sales tax increase dedicated to transportation. k) Funding to assist cities burdened by cost participation responsibilities imposed by improvement projects on the state’s principal arterial system and on the county state aid highway (CSAH) system. l) Funding for transportation components of economic development and redevelopment projects. m) Full funding for all components of state highway projects, including related stormwater management systems, through state sources. n) Establishment of a “Mainstreets Fund” to assist cities with non- transportation related components of trunk highway projects such as utility upgrades and improvements that contribute to economic development. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 78 o) Funding to build roads to standards that can accommodate the year-round transport of heavy loads. p) A sales tax exemption for materials purchased for state and local road, bridge, sidewalk, trail and transit construction projects. q) Authority for cities to impose development impact fees for transportation infrastructure. r) Local funding options that would allow cities to raise revenues for roads, bridges, sidewalks, trails, and transit. s) Expanded use of alternative revenue sources such as MnPASS and other tolling mechanisms for funding of maintenance and construction (where feasibility studies indicate the program is appropriate). LE-35. Turnbacks of County and State Roads Issue: As road funding becomes increasingly inadequate, more roads are being “turned back” to cities from counties and the state. Response: Turnbacks should not occur without direct funding or transfer of a funding source. A process of negotiation and mediation should govern the timing, funding, and condition of turned-back roads. Agreements should be negotiated and finalized before work on a project requiring a turnback begins. City taxpayers should receive the same treatment as township taxpayers. The requirement for a public hearing, standards about the conditions of turnbacks, and temporary maintenance funding should also apply to county turnbacks to cities. At a minimum, roads that are proposed to be turned back to a city government should be brought up to the standards of the receiving government, or that city should be compensated with a direct payment. Direct funding should be provided for smaller cities that are not provided with turnback financing through the municipal state aid system. LE-36. MnDOT Rights-of-Way Maintenance Issue: Maintenance of property, including government property and facilities, is important to public safety and to the image of Minnesota cities. Cities are acutely aware of the responsibility they have for enforcing property maintenance codes pertaining to grass mowing, noxious weed abatement, the placement of trash in yards and fence maintenance. Minnesota has many miles of highways that run through cities. In recent years, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has cut a substantial percentage of its rights-of-way management staff. The cuts have resulted in reduced maintenance along some corridors and on parcels acquired by MnDOT for transportation purposes. Specifically, MnDOT has reduced the frequency of mowing, litter collection, noxious weed abatement, graffiti abatement and repair of fences and guard rails. This maintenance reduction has created public safety concerns, undermined efforts to keep corridors attractive and presented challenges for communities working to promote economic development. Response: MnDOT must maintain state rights-of-way and parcels acquired by MnDOT for transportation purposes located within city limits in a manner consistent with local ordinances governing the upkeep of private property when requested by the city. Alternatively, MnDOT should reimburse Minnesota cities for the labor, supplies, and League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 79 equipment necessary to maintain state rights-of-way to meet city standards and/or minimize public safety hazards. The Legislature must provide MnDOT with adequate funds to maintain state rights-of-way. LE-37. Funding for Non-Municipal State Aid City Streets Issue: Minnesota has over 141,000 miles of roadway, and more than 22,500 miles—or 16 percent--are owned and maintained by Minnesota’s 853 cities. The Minnesota Constitution limits eligibility for dedicated Highway User Tax Distribution Fund dollars to up to twenty percent of streets in cities with populations over 5,000 (147 of 853 cities). This means almost 85 percent of municipal streets are ineligible for municipal state aid (MSA) funds and must be paid for with property taxes and special assessments. Funding challenges are compounded by city cost participation requirements in state and county highway projects, which divert resources from city-owned streets. Recognizing the unique street funding needs in cities under 5,000 population, the 2015 legislature created the Small Cities Assistance Account (Minn. Stat. § 162.145). Funds in the account are distributed through a formula to all cities under 5,000 population for street maintenance and reconstruction. Unfortunately, funding for the account was only provided for one year. Maintenance costs increase as road systems age, and no city--large or small—is spending enough on roadway capital improvements to maintain a 50-year lifecycle. For every one dollar spent on maintenance, a road authority--and therefore taxpayers--save seven dollars in repairs. According to a report released in late 2012 by the governor’s Transportation Finance Advisory Committee, cities collectively need an additional $400 million per year to bring city streets up to an economically competitive standard. Response: City streets are a separate but integral piece of the network of roads supporting movement of people and goods. Cities need greater resources and flexible policies in order to meet growing demands for street improvements and maintenance. The League of Minnesota Cities supports: a) A dedicated and sustainable state funding source for non-MSA city streets in large and small cities statewide; b) enabling legislation that would allow cities to create street improvement districts (similar to sidewalk improvement districts already allowed under Minn. Stat. § 435.44); and c) the creation of a new fund within the Local Road Improvement Program that would provide grants to cities burdened by cost participation requirements related to trunk highway and county state-aid projects. LE-38. Authority to Allow Amenities in MnDOT Rights-of- Way Issue: Cities served by the state’s trunk highway system frequently request features on the highway right-of-way (ROW) that would improve the aesthetics of the highway or provide public amenities exceeding components the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation (MnDOT) may include. Minn. Stat. §161.20, Subd. 2(b), gives the MnDOT commissioner authority to make agreements with and cooperate with any governmental authority relating to trunk League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 80 highway construction and improvements; however, Minn. Stat. §161.434 provides that arrangements and agreements must be “for highway purposes”. These restrictions are problematic in cities where a downtown commercial area exists along a trunk highway. Some of these cities desire amenities that would make commercial areas adjacent to trunk highways more vibrant by allowing outdoor dining, landscaping, decorative lighting or other aesthetic improvements that do not serve a highway purpose. Under current law, the city cannot approve amenities that encroach on the ROW. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports authorizing cities, by ordinance, to allow amenities that do not serve highway purposes on trunk highway ROW within their jurisdictions. The League also supports a requirement that MnDOT develop and approve rules related to local ordinances. LE-39. Complete Streets Issue: There is increasing public support for the reform of local street design policies to make streets safer for pedestrians, cyclists and neighborhood residents. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports reforms in state design guidelines for local streets that would give cities greater flexibility to safely accommodate all modes of travel, including walking and biking. The state should also provide incentives such as grants to local units of government working to advance complete street projects. Crosswalks and Safe Routes to School projects should be eligible for incentives. The League opposes state imposed unfunded mandates that would increase the costs of building streets in contexts where facilities for cyclists and pedestrians are unnecessary or inappropriate. LE-40. Infrastructure Fees Issue: New development and the resulting growth create an increased demand for public infrastructure and other public facilities. Severe constraints on local fiscal resources and dramatic forecasts for population growth have prompted cities to reconsider ways to pay for the inevitable costs associated with new development. Traditional financing methods tend to subsidize new development at the expense of the existing community, discourage sound land-use planning, place inefficient pressures on public facilities, and allow under-utilization of existing infrastructure. Consequently, local communities are exploring methods to ensure new development pays its fair share of the true costs of growth. In Harstad v. City of Woodbury, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently clarified that state statute does not provide the authority for cities to impose infrastructure fees to fund future road improvements when approving subdivision applications under Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2a. Given the existing authorization to impose fees on new development of other infrastructure, such as water, sanitary and storm sewer, and for park purposes, it is reasonable to extend the concept to additional public infrastructure and facilities improvement also necessitated by new development. Response: The Legislature should authorize local units of government to impose infrastructure fees so new League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 81 development pays its fair share of the off- site, as well as the on-site, costs of public infrastructure and other public facilities needed to adequately serve new development. LE-41. Safe Routes to School Grants Management Issue: The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program provides funding support for capital projects that promote and encourage more students to walk or bicycle to school by making the school routes safer and more accessible. The following are some types of SRTS infrastructure improvement grants that are provided by the state and offered through the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation (MnDOT): x School site improvements: secure bicycle parking facilities, traffic diversion improvements, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements; x Pedestrian facilities: new sidewalk, sidewalk gap closures, and related ADA improvements; x Bicycle facilities: bicycle trails, separated multi-use or shared paths and related ADA improvements; and x Traffic calming and crossing improvements: curb extensions, speed humps, median refuges, enhanced crosswalk markings, timed on/off beacons, vehicle feedback signs (dynamic speed signs), and other traffic control devices. Cities that receive municipal state aid (MSA)--those with populations above 5,000--may apply for and administer their own SRTS grants. Non-MSA cities, even those with a city engineer on staff or contract, must rely on the county to manage any grant funds secured as well as to approve the project design. In some cities, this requirement has led to project delays and disputes with counties over project design and delivery. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports changes to MnDOT rules to allow small cities that have the capacity to manage SRTS grants and projects to do so without county approval. LE-42. Railroads Issue: Railroads impose far-reaching and long-term impacts on communities. The impact of railroads on communities has become more pronounced in Minnesota as the number and length of trains have increased due to frac sand and crude oil entering the state by rail to and from North Dakota. While railroads often support economic activity and can relieve pressure on roadway and bridge infrastructure, they also bring noise, environmental impacts and safety challenges. Below are some of the concerns cities have raised about railroads: a) Local public safety personnel are underequipped to respond to a potential derailment of a train carrying hazardous materials such as crude oil or nuclear products. b) The cost-share ratio related to roadway crossing improvements is borne disproportionately by the public sector. Some estimates are 80 percent public to 20 percent private funding, regardless of the public entity’s ability to pay or whether service is provided within the community. Funding has not kept pace with the growing need for grade separations. c) Legislation brought by the railroad industry that would exempt railroads from stormwater fees and assessments and shift the cost of complying with League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 82 stormwater management to other property owners. d) The financial burden is faced by the public sector to deal with mitigation improvements, a cost that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) is not requiring the private sector to pay. e) At-grade crossings are blocked by both long moving trains and by trains that stop and remain stopped, sometimes for hours at a time. Blocked crossings delay motorists and sometimes prevent passage of emergency vehicles. f) Difficulty and expense of imposing and enforcing whistleblowing ordinances. g) Unabated graffiti on railroad cars and structures. h) Negative impacts of long- and short- term storage of rail cars on adjacent properties. i) Pre-emption of local and state authority to regulate railroad activities. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes legislation and policies that disproportionately shift authority, costs and/or liability away from railroad companies and onto other entities. The railroad industry, along with state and federal government, must: a) Adequately mitigate the negative impacts of railroads on communities; b) Allow local governments to enforce the existing state and federal laws regarding the maximum time a crossing may be blocked, and provide a mechanism to do so; c) Provide that timely notice to the impacted municipality is required in advance when a crossing or crossings will be blocked by a stopped train; d) Require railroad companies to provide a direct emergency response telephone number for city first responders (police, fire, ambulance or other designated official) to call when an at-grade crossing is blocked, and the emergency services need this crossing immediately unblocked to continue their response; e) Allow local governments to enforce whistle-free zones; f) Impose and implement safety standards that are in the best interest of the public, including requiring every train that is carrying freight to be operated with a crew of at least two crewmembers; g) Equip and train local public safety officials to respond to potential catastrophic rail incidents; h) Develop plans and identify funding sources for more grade separations between railways and roadways; and i) Fund and implement improvements to rail car storage facilities. The public sector should not incur the costs of improvements sought by the private sector, and cities should not be required to fund most of the cost of crossing repairs or improvements. The federal government must exercise greater oversight of the STB to ensure fair and equitable solutions are reached when dealing with cities in Minnesota. Finally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) Office of Freight and Passenger Rail should advocate on behalf of local communities when conflicts between cities and railroad entities arise. LE-43. Airport Planning and Funding Issue: Airports are an essential component of Minnesota’s transportation infrastructure. Airports in the State of Minnesota serve important gateway to the region, the nation, and global markets. They serve as a primary access point to our national airport system. The Minneapolis St. Paul International League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 83 Airport (MSP) is critical to the movement of people and goods in and out of the state and even with all the planned improvements, it will eventually reach its capacity. The state needs to implement a long-term strategy to make better use of other airport facilities and existing resources, reduce environmental impacts, and achieve sound and sustainable economic growth throughout the state. Aviation planning is a multi-layered effort with different levels of responsibilities. Currently, the State Airports System Plan is put together by MnDOT with individual pieces developed by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), Metropolitan Council (MC), and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Aviation planning could be improved by a more unified statewide effort and coordination of the various aviation strategies through creation of an oversight body. Minn. Stat. § 360.017 establishes the State Airport Fund and authorizes the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Office of Aeronautics to support cities, counties and townships in the planning, development, maintenance and safe operation of public airports. In recent years, in order to help balance the state’s budget, the Legislature transferred funds from the State Airport Fund to the General Fund. Although the borrowed funds were eventually repaid in full, efforts to preserve and improve the quality of airports throughout the state were hindered by the unavailability of these revenues. The Minnesota Council of Airports (MCOA), a membership organization for airport authorities and municipal entities who own airports, has led efforts to bring stakeholders together. Most recently, the MCOA established the State Airports Fund Committee to work with the MnDOT Office of Aeronautics to discuss and advise future management practices of the State Airport Fund. Response: The state needs a higher degree of integration of agencies (FAA, MnDOT, MC, and MAC) and communities related to aviation planning. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the collaborative efforts initiated by the MCOA and supports the development of a statewide airport advisory board, which could provide input, review and make recommendations to assist in development of a comprehensive statewide State Airports System Plan. The state needs to make planning and investment decisions that will maximize the potential for airports to become economic development centers that provide access to domestic and global marketplaces. Investments in airports allow existing businesses to remain and grow, help attract new businesses, increase employment, and lower product and service costs for the benefit of the region. Finally, the Legislature should not authorize shifting of dedicated State Airports Fund dollars to resolve general fund deficits. LE-44. Airport Safety Zones Issue: The field of aeronautics is regulated generally by Minn. Stat. ch. 360 and Chapter 8800 of the Minnesota Rules. Land use safety zones and other public airport zoning standards are established in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8800.2400, and are adopted by local airport zoning regulations that are submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) commissioner for review and approval before adoption. Airport safety zones are intended to restrict land uses that may be hazardous to the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 84 operational safety of aircraft using the public airport, and to protect the safety and property of people on the ground in the area near the public airport. While some of the provisions included in the Minnesota Rules are required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), other provisions go well beyond the federal requirements. In some cases, the Minnesota Rules do not make sense for the community served by a public airport. Finally, in some cases airports cross multiple municipal jurisdictions. Neither state law nor Minnesota Rules provide powers for joint airport zoning boards. These boards could be useful in resolving interjurisdictional issues involving airport planning, development, funding and zoning. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports efforts to protect the safety and property of people living and working near public airports. The League also recognizes that the Minnesota Rules related to public airport zoning standards exceed the FAA’s and other states’ standards and, thus, needlessly infringe on local control. The League supports changes to Minnesota Rules pertaining to airport zoning standards that will more closely align Minnesota’s Rules with those in other states, while at the same time retaining local authority to be more restrictive than the Minnesota Rules. The League also supports changes to Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules that would authorize powers for joint airport zoning boards so issues related to funding, staffing, and authority to enforce ordinances can be resolved at the local level. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 85 HUMAN RESOURCES & DATA PRACTICES HR-1. Personnel Mandates and Limits on Local Control Issue: Many state laws increase the cost of providing city services to residents by requiring city governments to provide certain levels of compensation or benefits to public employees, by specifying certain working conditions, or by limiting city governments’ ability to effectively manage their personnel resources. For instance, existing state laws limit governments’ ability to effectively address incompetence or misconduct of city employees by specifying certain procedures or standards of conduct that cities must follow. Several laws are potentially contradictory and force local governments to choose which one to follow. Response: Any new legislation and changes to existing legislation should meet the following goals: a) Recognize the need for local decision- making authority by local elected officials with regard to the terms and conditions of employment for local government employees (e.g., allow local elected officials to determine employee compensation, employee recognition, and to make employee benefit decisions. b) Provide funding that pays the full costs of any mandated employment- related expenditures. c) Avoid and eliminate expensive and time-consuming duplicative legal protections and processes for public employees. d) Eliminate contradictory existing laws regarding public employment. e) Eliminate mandates for local government employers that are not imposed upon the state as an employer. f) Use the collective bargaining process established by state law, rather than legal mandates, to determine benefits for employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. HR-2. Earned Sick and Safe Time Issue: In recent years, there have been legislative proposals to require employers to provide “earned sick and safe time” affording employees one hour of sick and safe time for every 30 hours worked. Cities recognize their employees for their dedication to public service and currently provide a wide variety of excellent benefits to their employees and prioritize the health and well-being of staff. Benefits include paid time off for most staff who are required to be enrolled in the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) (Minn. Stat. § 353.01, subds. 2a, 2b). In developing leave and benefit policies, cities must be mindful of the cost to citizens for programs, much of which are driven by staff compensation and benefits. Response: To avoid significant cost increases and to provide clarity, the Legislature should use the same eligibility requirements for public employees outlined in state statute for PERA participation if a mandatory sick and sick and safe time program is enacted by the Legislature. HR-3. Pay Equity Compliance Issue: In 1984, the Legislature passed the Local Government Pay Equity Act to eliminate sex-based wage disparities in public employment. The Act requires each local government to submit reports of its pay structure to the state’s Pay Equity Compliance Coordinator within the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 86 Department of Management and Budget. The data is then subject to analysis to determine if there are inequities in the city’s pay structure. Since its passage, the administrative rules implementing the Act have not substantively changed. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the Local Government Pay Equity Act, and seeks to partner with the Legislature and the state’s Pay Equity Compliance Coordinator to update and improve the current system so that cities can more efficiently and effectively fulfill the mandated reporting requirements. Local governments and the state should: a) Explore and document problems individual local governments are experiencing, and evaluate whether the problems are widespread and if they can be resolved administratively; b) Evaluate the reporting process, and make recommendations for improvement as needed; c) Review the methodology for analyzing pay equity data; and d) Evaluate the process by which cities receive notification of reporting requirements and compliance issues and make recommendations for improvement as needed. HR-4. Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) Issue: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the purpose of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) to balance the rights and interests of public employees, public employers, and the general public. However, certain changes are necessary to assist public employers in implementing this law. For example, current definitions of “public employee” are confusing and difficult to manage. In addition, the arbitration process has produced decisions that are contrary to the interests of the public, and the legal standard for overturning arbitration decisions is very difficult to meet. Also, recent interpretations of Minn. Stat. § 179A.25 (independent review of non-union employee grievances) has created uncertainty and confusion in the longstanding judicial process used by courts to review city council administrative decisions, particularly employment termination decisions of non- union employees. Response: Minn. Stat. ch. 179A should be modified to: a) Change the definition of “public employee” under PELRA by removing the existing 14-hour/67-day requirement and replace it with a definition in which employees must work an annual average of 20 hours or more per week. b) Exclude temporary or seasonal employees, as well as unpaid volunteers, from the PELRA definition of public employee in Minn. Stat. ch. 179A. c) Provide different options for accessing arbitrators and utilizing the arbitration process in order to “address inequities” between union and management representatives. d) Allow public employers to bypass mandatory arbitration required under PELRA and directly access the district court system in situations where an employee is being terminated for gross misconduct (e.g., sexual harassment, sexual abuse, theft or a felony conviction) that is related to the employee’s position with the public employer. e) Repeal Minn. Stat. § 179A.25 or, in lieu of repeal, exclude employment terminations from Minn. Stat. § 179A.25; require a 60-day League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 87 timeframe for filing a petition for review of a grievance under Minn. Stat. § 179A.25; and clarify that decisions of Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) under this section are non-binding and merely advisory. HR-5. Implications of Janus v. AFSCME Issue: Historically, both members and non- members of public sector unions could opt out of paying the portion of dues that explicitly go to the union’s political activities. But, until recently, non-members were still required to pay what was called a “fair share” fee, allegedly because even non- members receive the benefits of union representation. Union dues are deducted from employee paychecks by employers based on notification of membership provided by labor unions. Overruling decades of precedent, in June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional for public employees who object to belonging to a union to be required to pay a fair share fee. (Janus v. AFSCME). Specifically, the Supreme Court held that laws compelling fair share dues from unwilling members violated the First Amendment by requiring these employees to, in effect, pay for speech with which they do not agree, and that affirmative, voluntary consent is required for dues deduction. Given the degree of uncertainty about the implications of the ruling, public employees are seeking information about their constitutional rights regarding labor union membership and associated dues. The Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act defines unfair labor practices (“ULPs”) to include dominating or interfering with the formation, existence, or administration of union membership. To avoid a potential allegation that they have engaged in unfair labor practices, if employees seek information about union membership from their employers, employers often refer their employees to union representatives for additional information. The Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) is the state agency charged with providing technical training and information on collective bargaining for the public sector in Minnesota. BMS would be an ideal resource for employees to find critical information about labor union membership, particularly in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling. Additionally, as public sector unions are examining methods to compensate for fair share revenue that may now be lost, laws have been proposed in states outside of Minnesota, which preempt the bargaining process and impose new requirements on public employers. Some of the proposed requirements are designed to help unions market their services to their members or to require the public employers to pay the costs of collective bargaining. Response: To ensure that both public employers and public employees successfully navigate the current unknowns following the Janus decision, the League of Minnesota Cities urges BMS to provide and disseminate information to employees about union membership across the state. The League also urges the Legislature to act to protect public employers against: a) ULP charges when providing factual information to employees about union membership; b) ULP charges when requiring unions to provide original documentation of voluntary consent to dues deduction; and League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 88 c) being forced to pay the direct cost of employee representation by unions. HR-6. Public Employment Relations Board Issue: Dating back to the 1970’s, Minnesota had a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in place, but over time, its responsibilities were changed and reassigned to another bureau. Until the reemergence of the PERB in 2014, unfair labor practices (ULPs) actions could be brought in Minnesota District Courts through injunctive relief. In 2014, the Legislature recreated PERB to hear ULPs filed by employees, employers and labor unions under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA). The board was created in Minn. Stat. ch. 179A and after receiving initial funding, the board has yet to be fully funded or operational. Much of the current statutory language regarding implementation should be amended to ensure the PERB operates successfully and efficiently for both public employees and employers. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the structure and process to address ULPs that was utilized before the reestablishment of the PERB in 2014. If the PERB is implemented fully and funded sufficiently, the League of Minnesota Cities encourages the Legislature to make the following changes: a) Create statutory authority for the PERB to establish a fee-based structure for filing ULPs and to pay for hearing officers, with costs to be shared by employers and authorized representatives; b) Allow the PERB to defer to the decisions made by an arbitrator to prevent duplicative litigation on the same issue; and c) Amend the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law to properly maintain the integrity of the hearing process. HR-7. Payment of Arbitration Fees Issue: Like other employers, cities must sometimes make difficult employment decisions and uphold certain principles in order to best serve the public. In a union environment, grievance arbitration is generally used as a “last-resort” remedy when a difficult employment decision must be made or to uphold an important principle. Legislation has been introduced in the past that would require a city or the union to pay arbitration fees if a reasonable settlement is offered and refused in a grievance situation, and the arbitrator ultimately decides on a less favorable remedy. The legislation would have the impact of discouraging cities from using the grievance arbitration process in a manner that best serves the public good. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes legislation that would undermine the grievance arbitration process and discourage cities from using the process in the manner intended. Specifically, the League opposes any legislation that proposes payment of grievance arbitration fees when a settlement is offered and declined. HR-8. Essential Employees Issue: Cities must balance the health, welfare, and safety of the public with the costs to taxpayers. Essential employee status removes the right to strike, but gives the right to mandatory binding arbitration. This status can result in arbitration awards that exceed the city’s budget or conflict with the city’s compensation policy. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 89 Response: The Legislature should carefully examine requests from interest groups seeking essential employee status under Minn. Stat. ch. 179A (PELRA). The League of Minnesota Cities opposes legislation that mandates arbitration that increases costs and removes local decision-making authority. The League supports a mandate for Final Offer/Total Package arbitration for all essential groups on a trial basis. The League also supports a change in the PELRA law that would strengthen existing language (Minn. Stat. § 179A.16, subd. 7) requiring arbitrators to consider a public employer’s obligation to efficiently manage their operations. Specifically, the statute should be amended to require arbitrators to take into consideration any wage adjustments already given to or negotiated with other groups – both union and non-union for the same employer in the same contract year. HR-9. Re-employment Benefits Issue: Cities are often required to help pay the benefits of workers who have initially been denied benefits through their employment with the city but later been re- employed by a different employer; sometimes this occurs when the employee has been found to have committee gross misconduct while employed by the city. Additionally, employers are prohibited from entering into agreements with employees not to contest or appeal payment of unemployment benefits as part of a settlement agreement at termination of employment. Because most cities are “reimbursement employers,” the majority of the cost of benefits paid to the employee are at the direct expense of the city. The ability to enter into such an agreement can greatly aid a city in reaching a settlement at a relatively low-cost to the city’s taxpayers. Response: Cities should not be forced to pay benefits as bae wage employers if the employee is determined to have committed gross misconduct during their employment with the city, even if the employee voluntarily resigns. In addition, cities (as reimbursement employers) should be allowed to enter into agreements with employees to not contest a determination of eligibility for unemployment benefits where the employer and employee mutually agree to this as a term of separation. HR-10. Public Employee Defined Benefit Pension Plans Issue: Public pensions are an important employee benefit that can help cities attract and retain employees. However, unlike salary and other employee benefits that are established by each city, the pension contribution rates and benefit levels are set by the state legislature. Benefit levels and plan costs must be carefully balanced to assure long-term sustainability of the pension plans and affordability to employers and employees. Despite ongoing funding issues, the Legislature and Governor had been unable to reach agreement on sustainability changes to the Public Employees Retirement Association plans. In 2018, the Legislature enacted a major pension reform package to improve the long-term financial status of the PERA pension plans. The legislation included benefit reductions for active employees, contribution increases for Police and Fire Plan employers and active employees and a modified cost of living adjustment (COLA) for retirees. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 90 Recent adjustments to balance PERA plan costs have largely focused on contribution increases rather than benefit adjustments. On January 1, 2015, the employer and employee contribution rates for the PERA General Plan each increased by 0.25% of salary, resulting in the current employer rate of 7.5 percent of salary and an employee rate of 6.5 percent of salary. For PERA Police and Fire (P&F) employees, the employer contribution was increased to 16.95% and the employee contribution was increased to 11.3% beginning January 1, 2019 and then the employer contribution was increased to 17.7% and the employee contribution was increased to 11.8% beginning January 1, 2020. For the PERA General Plan, an additional one percent employer contribution is required under Minn. Stat. § 353.27, subd. 3a, which will continue until the actuarial value of the plan assets equal or exceed the liabilities. Employees do not have a similar obligation to help the General Plan reach full funding. When the additional employer contribution was increased to 0.43 percent in 1997, the state instituted a PERA aid program for employers to partially offset the cost of increased employer contributions. However, the PERA aid payment rate is frozen at 1999 levels, while the additional employer contribution has since increased from .43% to 1.0%. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the sustainability modifications enacted by the legislature in 2018 and continues to oppose any benefit improvements for retirees or active employees until the financial health of the General Plan and the Police and Fire Plan is restored. For the PERA General Plan, any further increases in employer contributions should only be considered by the Legislature after other measures have been considered, including: a) An increase in employee contributions so that employees and employers truly bear the same responsibility to bring the pension plans to full funding; or b) The removal of 1) the cap on PERA Pension Aid payments and 2) the sunset of the aid program after FY2020, so the state equalizes the contributions of employees and employers. The League also supports: a) Modifications to the PERA eligibility guidelines to take into account temporary, seasonal, unique part- time, and student employment situations in cities, particularly in recreational operations. These modifications should include the use of pro-rated service credit, which would make PERA consistent with the other major Minnesota pension plans. b) A comprehensive review of exclusions from pension participation with the goal of simplifying current eligibility guidelines. Such a review should also include a possible revision of current penalties for employers that fail to report covered employees to ensure that these penalties are not overly harsh and punitive. c) The transfer of all school district employees out of the PERA General Plan and into another fund that is more appropriate for school district employees as long as the change would not negatively impact the financial health of the pension funds nor result in employer contribution increases. The continued authority of cities to effectively use retirees in reemployment situations. The League League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 91 supports policy changes which would include an increase in the earnings threshold for such retirees and supports keeping the required break in service at 30 days and opposes suspending payments to retirees. For PERA Police and Fire, any further increases in employer contributions should only be considered by the Legislature after other measures have been considered, including: a) An initial increase in the employee contribution of at least 1.0% of salary with subsequent increases split evenly between employee and employer so that the contribution ratio moves toward a more equitable split between employees and employers; or b) An additional state general fund appropriation to fund the deficiency in police and fire pension aid payments so that the state equalizes the contributions of employers and employees. c) Increasing the minimum and full retirement ages for new PERA Police and Fire plan participants. d) Implementing a contribution-based benefit formula that would align benefits payable with contributions made on behalf of an employee in order to address high-five spiking issues. The League also supports: a) Maintaining the statutory changes made to Minn. Stat. § 353.01 in 2007 that separate injuries resulting from “hazardous duties” from injuries resulting from “non-hazardous duties” for purposes of police and fire disability retirement benefits. b) A thorough study by PERA of the current effects of overtime accumulation and outside employment compensation on individual pension benefits and the overall funding of the plan. The study should also include recommendations on whether the overtime or outside employment should be factored into or excluded from high five average wage calculations. c) Allowing cities, including cities with combination (full-time and paid-on call staff) fire departments, to work with their fire relief associations to determine the best application of fire state aid. For PERA Corrections Plan the League supports: a) Maintaining the current definition of covered employees for the PERA corrections plan, which does not include dispatchers due to the substantial differences between the dispatchers and the existing corrections positions covered by this plan. For all PERA defined benefit plans the League supports: a) Adjustments to the benefits for active members and retirees to reduce the cost of the plans. b) Requiring special legislation for individual employee pension benefit increases be initiated or approved by the city council of the impacted city unless the cost of the benefit increase is fully covered by the individual or the legislation addresses a clerical or administrative error. c) Requiring PERA to collect and consider all employer-provided information, including independent medical examinations and other relevant personnel data and to League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 92 broaden the basis for appealing disability determination decisions. HR-11. Retirement Work Incentives Issue: Demographic experts warn that as the baby boomers retire, employers will begin to experience a significant labor shortage and lose the substantial expertise and knowledge of a fully-trained workforce. One solution to the coming labor shortage is to provide some incentives for retirees to postpone full retirement with a “phased-in” approach that would allow “knowledge transfer” to take place between the retiree and less- experienced replacement staff. The Phased Retirement Option (PRO) program was created by PERA for this purpose. The PRO program meets many of the goals of workforce planning. However, cities would benefit from broadening the criteria for participation; currently, only employees age 62 or older can participate. In addition, the program is scheduled to sunset in 2019. The program, as introduced, allows for five one-year renewals, which may be more than is needed to meet the intended purpose. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports changes to the PRO program (if actuarially neutral for PERA pension plans) that would: a) Broaden the criteria for participation to allow employees to participate at a younger age if such a change can be made without damaging the tax- favored status of the plan. b) Remove the sunset provision to allow the plan to continue past 2019. c) Reduce the number of one-year renewals from five to three. In addition, the League supports working with PERA to adjust member pension benefits as they continue to work under a PRO. HR-12. State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance Issue: Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 requires public employers to continue health insurance benefits for firefighters and peace officers injured in the line of duty. When the law was enacted in 1997, it contained a provision requiring the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to reimburse employers for the full amount of administering this benefit. By 2002, the fund created to provide this benefit became deficient. Instead of increasing the fund, the 2003 Legislature amended the law to pro-rate reimbursements to cities based on the amount available and the number of eligible applicants. The 2003 law change triggered a significant and unanticipated cost to cities. The cost has increased every year for cities, and the funding for the account has never been increased. Even if the health insurance benefit was discontinued entirely, the costs for existing recipients will substantially increase well into the future due to the growing cost of health insurance. In 2015, the Legislature expanded the health insurance benefit to include survivors of volunteer firefighters who die in the line of duty. This change increased the number of firefighters eligible for this benefit from 2,000 to 20,000—without increasing funding for the reimbursement account. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the following legislative actions to address the funding deficiency in this program: League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 93 a) The state must fully fund programs that pay for health insurance for police and fire employees injured in the line of duty and dependents of police and fire employees killed in the line of duty as originally required under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. b) The Legislature must avoid further expansion of eligibility for benefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 unless 1) full funding for benefits is provided by the state; and 2) beneficiaries can be enrolled in a state health insurance plan such as the Public Employees Insurance Program (PEIP). c) Cumulative injuries that occur over time in the job should not qualify a police officer or firefighter for benefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 since these types of cumulative injuries are not unique to the dangers of police officer and firefighter duties. d) The Legislature must clarify that the amount of an employer’s contribution under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 is no greater than that given to active employees in the same job class. e) The Legislature must establish the minimum criteria used to determine ability to work, and set a percentage threshold of disability for eligibility into this program. At a minimum, the Legislature must identify that a workers’ compensation determination as to whether the injury is work- related is necessary in order to receive the benefits under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. f) Employees who receive a police and fire disability retirement benefit and accept another job that offers them group health benefits should be required to pay for their group health benefits with the city should they decide to continue them. The Legislature must amend Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 to reflect that employees are required to inform the city when they become eligible for coverage under another group plan and that failure to do so is grounds for termination from the benefits granted under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. HR-13. Health Care Insurance Programs Issue: Cities, like other employers in the state, are struggling with the rising costs of health care insurance for their employees. In addition, cities must cope with unfunded mandates imposed on them by the Legislature such as the requirement to pool early retirees with active employees and the requirement to bargain over changes in the “aggregate value” of benefits, even when the city’s contribution has not changed. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislative efforts to control health insurance costs while maintaining quality health care services. However, cities have differing local needs and circumstances and must retain the flexibility to provide unique and creative solutions to the rising costs of health care insurance for their employees. The League: a) Opposes legislative action that undermines local flexibility to manage rising health care costs. b) Encourages the Legislature to carefully examine the costs and administrative impacts of any new, mandated insurance-related benefit before imposing it upon city employers. c) Supports changes to Minn. Stat. § 471.6161, subd. 5, that would clarify the intent of the subdivision is to address changes in cost vs. changes in value (e.g., changes in provider League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 94 networks, changes in benefit levels required by an incumbent insurance carrier, changes required for compliance with state and federal laws, including those needed to avoid incurring the federal excise tax known as the “Cadillac Tax”. d) Supports changes to Minn. Stat. § 471.61 so that the requirement for cities to offer retiree coverage begins on the date the retiree and/or dependents become eligible for federal Medicare coverage. e) Supports a clarification to Minn. Stat § 471.61 and to Minn. Stat. § 471.617 to explicitly alleviate a city’s responsibility to comply with group health benefits mandated by state law when the city’s employees are covered under a union plan authorized by federal statutes. f) Supports statutory authorization for cities to collect up to a two percent administrative fee from retirees receiving post-retirement health insurance benefits. g) Opposes any mandatory, centralized, statewide health insurance option for active or retired city employees. h) Supports changing Minn. Stat. § 62A.21 to place reasonable limits on health care continuation for former spouses, similar to the Federal COBRA law. HR-14. Workers’ Compensation Issue: Rising medical costs are an increasingly serious problem for all employers and insurers, and now represent over half of all loss costs within the workers’ compensation system. Medical costs will be a major driver of future workers’ compensation premium increases. In addition, the 2013 legislature added post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a compensable injury and in 2014, a Minnesota Supreme Court decision found that provisions in the Workers’ Compensation statute which allow workers compensation benefits for permanent and total disabilities to be offset by disability benefits and pension benefits such as Social Security does not apply to retirement benefits of the Public Employees Retirement Association. In 2018, the Legislature modified Minn. Stat. § 176.011 subd. 15, which defines an occupational disease to add a rebuttable presumption to a diagnosis of PTSD in certain public safety and related personnel. The Minnesota Legislature also regularly considered proposals to expand the heart, lung and infectious disease presumptions for public safety workers, and to make the presumptions more conclusive and difficult to rebut. These types of benefit expansions would further increase municipal workers’ compensation costs. Response: Legislative action is necessary to address increasing workers’ compensation costs, particularly rising medical costs. The League of Minnesota Cities supports use of the Workers Compensation Advisory Council (WCAC) system to consider proposals for changes to the workers’ compensation law, and urges the WCAC and the Legislature to approve medical cost containment reforms. The League also supports filling an existing WCAC employer vacancy with a public-sector employer representative or adding a designated public-sector employer representative to the WCAC. The League opposes expansion of workers’ compensation and related health insurance benefits because of the potential for dramatically increasing costs to cities. Specifically, the League opposes expansion of the heart, lung and infectious disease and PTSD presumptions as well as any expansion of League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 95 the law that would require payment of health insurance premiums. The League also supports continuing the WCRA as the mandatory workers’ compensation reinsurer for insurers and self-insurers in Minnesota and supports modifying state statutes to treat PTSD events involving several affected parties as one occurrence for retention purposes, thereby reducing the exposure of self- insured entities and the statewide insurance pools. Such a change would not have any effect on the benefit an individual employee would receive. The League supports legislation that would disallow the “stacking” of PERA retirement benefits and Workers Compensation benefits due to the fact that some injured employees could receive total compensation from workers’ compensation and PERA retirement benefits that would be well above the salary that they had been earning and the fact that the costs would ultimately be passed on to cities and their taxpayers. HR-15. Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Issue: Employer testing of job applicants is governed by Minn. Stat. § 181.950 – 181.957 and is known as the Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA). It applies to all employers with one or more employees, including cities. The DATWA has not been amended for many years to reflect various and significant changes in drug-testing technology nor policy changes at the federal level. The DATWA prohibits an employer from terminating an employee for a positive controlled substance test without first providing the employee a chance for rehabilitation and treatment. This law applies to probationary employees as well as those who have completed probation. Currently, breathalyzer use and saliva swabs are permitted for alcohol testing under federal commercial driver testing laws though Minnesota does not allow for the use of breathalyzers in testing. Use of breathalyzers for employee alcohol testing is a less invasive, less expensive method. In addition, federal commercial driver testing laws address a number of outcomes other than a positive test result, including but not limited to tampering with a sample, providing a substitute sample, providing a sample that is not human urine, providing a sample that is not capable of being tested, etc. State law is silent on these outcomes. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the following changes to the DATWA: a) Updates to reflect new issues, such as adding new definitions as needed to reflect current practices; b) Clarification that a positive controlled substance test during probation does not require the employer to provide an employee who has not completed probation a chance for rehabilitation and treatment; and c) Permitting the use of breathalyzers and saliva swabs as acceptable technology for determining alcohol use. HR-16. Veterans Preference Issue: Cities have a long history of recruiting and hiring veterans as they are a natural fit in city government. Across the state, cities are partners in working with and ensuring veterans have a variety of opportunities afforded to them given their sacrifice and service. The purpose of the Minnesota Veteran’s Preference Act (VPA) League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 96 is to facilitate the transition of veterans from the military to civilian life and to help compensate veterans for their sacrifices of health and time to the community, state and nation. The VPA grants veterans limited preference over nonveterans in hiring and promotion for most state and local government employment to recognize the training and experience they received as a result of serving in the military. It also provides local government employees who are veterans some protection against unfair demotions and dismissals. These preferences and protections are commonly referred to as “veteran’s preference” and are codified in Minn. Stat. §§ 43A.11, 197.455, 197.46, 197.48, and 197.481. Once a veteran has completed an initial probationary period upon hire, they cannot be removed from their position or employment, except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a properly noticed hearing. Currently, a veteran can only be placed on probation upon hire but not following a promotion. It is common practice to place employees on probation following employee promotion making this restriction inconsistent with current practice and procedure. Termination hearings are held before the local civil service commission or before an arbitrator and Minn. Stat. § 197.46 allows a veteran to choose a hearing before the local civil service commission, or an arbitrator. Members of civil service commissions are chosen for their expertise and experience with employment law. Hiring an arbitrator for a hearing instead of utilizing an established civil service commission is inefficient. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes the important contributions veterans have made and supports giving veterans limited preference in employment. To strengthen and improve the VPA, the legislature should: a) Allow cities to place veterans on probationary periods upon promotion as they do with other employees; and b) Restore the language in Minn. Stat. § 197.46 requiring a hearing to be held before a local civil service commission where one exists. HR-17. Military Leave Reimbursement Issue: Minn. Stat. § 192.26 subd. 1, requires local units of government to provide 15 days of compensation per year to employees who are members of the military for military leave. State laws give preference to hiring veterans for public sector jobs, and, citizen soldiers are a natural fit to also serve as public safety personnel. As such, many public safety personnel are often also members of the military and are required to conduct training and military duties throughout the year. In addition to providing compensation for mandatory military leave, cities must also ensure that these temporary vacancies are adequately filled by public safety personnel whose training and qualifications are unique to providing public safety. This can result in added overtime costs and may impact public safety service levels. Government employers honor and recognize the importance of ensuring members of the military are able to fulfill their duties and participate in mandatory training, while also aiming to ensure that public safety service in their community is efficient, seamless, and cost-effective. In response to this issue, there have been recent legislative proposals to reimburse local units of government for League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 97 military leave paid to public safety personnel. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports state funding to ensure that local units of government can maintain quality and cost-effective public safety services in their communities and for their taxpayers while also offering full support for employees who are members of the military. Such state funding could include reimbursement of costs incurred to local units of government related to compensating personnel on military leave as well as reimbursement for costs related to ensuring these temporary vacancies are adequately filled. HR-18. Background Checks Issue: Current law allows criminal justice background checks on active employees (as opposed to applicants for employment) only when such employees are firefighters or work with children. The law governing criminal history background checks on police and other city employees does not specifically allow such checks on active employees. Cities need the ability to be able to conduct criminal history background checks on active employees as well as applicants for employment using the BCA or the BCA database access. Response: Cities should be able to conduct, but not be required to conduct, criminal history background checks on active employees using the BCA database. The laws governing background checks for all city employees should be amended to allow for this practice. For those cities that choose to use the BCA to run the criminal history employment background check for them, the fee should be the same as that charged to non-profit organizations. HR-19. Tele-Health Exams Issue: Technology improvements are creating new ways to approach many city functions. Specifically, the increased acceptance of the use of tele-health (audio and video, web-based) exams creates an opportunity for cities to access and use psychologists with specific expertise in public safety as part of the hiring process for police officers. However, the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Board has adopted a position prohibiting the use of tele-health exams for the required psychological oral interview/evaluation prior to hiring. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the use of tele-health (audio and video, web-based) exams to meet the requirements of the POST Board for a psychological oral interview/evaluation prior to hiring a police officer candidate. HR-20. Critical Incident Stress Debriefing Issue: Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) is a process designed to assist first responders deal with the stress and potential mental health issues after experiencing a traumatic incident. CISD can be similar to traditional counseling between a counselor and a group of law enforcement officers, firefighters, or other first responders, or it can involve one-on-one peer counseling between non-licensed counselors, such as first responders who have experienced similar incidents. CISD data is classified as private under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), and Minn. Stat. § 181.973 prohibits a participant in CISD or other peer counseling from disclosing any information shared in counseling sessions without the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 98 permission of the subject. Neither of these protections, however, prohibit the discoverability or admissibility of CISD data in a lawsuit, and federal common law on evidentiary privilege applies to licensed psychotherapists and social workers only. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). CISD is an important tool used to assist first responders, and those in need of CISD services should be allowed to participate in peer counseling without fear of having statements later used against them in court. This undermines the value of CISD and makes it less likely that first responders will seek help. Response: The Legislature should amend Minnesota law to exclude any statements or other information from employer- sponsored CISDs from being admissible in court, pursuant to the same guidelines as those established for registered nurses, psychologists, or licensed social workers under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(g). Data Practices DP-1. Data Practices Compliance Costs Issue: The purpose of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) is to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure while balancing the right of the public to know what the government is doing. The Act also attempts to balance these rights within a context of effective government operation. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the public policy behind the MGDPA while acknowledging that compliance with the law imposes costs on local taxpayers. Smaller cities struggle with limited staff and resources while larger cities struggle with larger complex databases. The MGDPA must balance the right of citizens to access public data with the cost to municipalities of complying with certain types of data requests. In 2014, the Legislature imposed additional security requirements on political subdivisions in an attempt to prevent unauthorized individuals from accessing private data. Adequate security measures are important, but they make compliance with the MGDPA more difficult and costly. Although the Legislature has made compliance with the MGDPA a priority, funding for the Data Practices Office of the Department of Administration, the department charged with overseeing the MGDPA, does not reflect the increased need for local government assistance. Cities continue to receive repetitive, overly broad and far-reaching data requests that require significant staff time to locate government records, redact private data or data unrelated to the request, and assemble documents to be provided in order to comply with requirements to provide access to public government data. Cities are experiencing significant increases in wide- ranging data requests, often utilizing specific word searches through multiple databases. “Word search” requests typically result in a voluminous quantity of data that must be reviewed and redacted, with significant staff cost. Because word searches retrieve even incidental references to the searched term, the search results often contain a significant volume of data that has little informational value. If the requestor does not request copies, the search costs cannot be recovered – even though the requestor dictated the specifics of the search. Furthermore, in some situations, as with overly broad data requests related to “applicant” lists, staff time and costs are significantly increased and not recoverable for very limited public benefit. The MGDPA League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 99 also limits the ability of cities to be reimbursed for responding to requests. Cities are limited to charging only 25-cents per page for copies of police motor vehicle incident reports, which does not cover the city cost for copying, while the Commissioner of Public Safety is exempt from this restriction—thereby permitting the Department of Public Safety to continue to charge $5 for incident reports that cities are required to submit to the department. Response: As the cost of complying with the MGDPA increases, the League supports: a) Providing additional state funding to assist political subdivisions with meeting the increasing complexity of managing government data. b) Providing state funding for statewide data practices training. c) Allowing political subdivisions to charge for the staff time that is required to comply with wide-ranging data requests regardless of whether copies of the data are requested or allowing political subdivisions to charge for actual costs for collection of data when the requestor makes his or her own copy of the data by taking a photo, bringing a copy device, etc. d) Providing a mechanism that would permit cities to challenge whether a data request is reasonable and made in good faith. e) Creating and funding an ombudsperson position in the Data Practices Office to determine reasonableness and proportionality of data practices requests. f) Providing funding to the Data Practices Office to engage in the rulemaking process to establish standards and procedures related to requests and responses to data practices requests that impose significant burdens on government entities. g) Amending the MGDPA to limit what is considered public applicant data to better balance the value of public data with the cost related to data practices compliance. h) Allowing political subdivisions to charge the same amount for copies of motor vehicle incident reports issued by local police and fire departments as the commissioner of public safety. The League of Minnesota Cities opposes: a) Further increasing the maximum exemplary damages that courts may impose against government entities, including cities, found to have violated the MGDPA; further increasing the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed when a court order is issued to compel a government entity to comply with MGDPA; or any statutory change that would make it a mandatory civil penalty to compel compliance under the MGDPA. b) Repealing of the administrative remedies provisions adopted by the 2010 Legislature to address disputes regarding MGDPA compliance issues. DP-2. Records Retention Compliance Costs Issue: The Official Records Act requires government entities to “make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities.” In accordance, cities must establish a records retention schedule, and maintain and destroy official records according to this schedule. There are rigorous requirements for any changes to a city’s records retention schedule, including getting approval from the statutorily-created Records Disposition League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 100 Panel, which strikes an appropriate balance between the government entity’s decision- making role in determining retention and disposition of official records with the public’s right to know the government entity’s official activities. Response: As the cost of complying with the records management laws increases, the League supports providing additional state funding to assist political subdivisions with meeting the increasing complexity of managing government records. The League of Minnesota Cities opposes changing the current record management requirements and statutory definitions. If changes are needed, subject matter experts should make recommendations through the records retention schedule process. DP-3. Updating the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Issue: The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) was first enacted in 1979. Almost 40 years later, times have changed dramatically. In particular, there has been exponential change in technology. In 1979, cities were largely maintaining data in paper form, computers had just become viable for home users, word processing had just become a reality, the first point-and- shoot, autofocus camera came on the market, and the internet was still about a decade on the horizon. While the MGDPA was originally drafted to be future thinking by contemplating the various forms data could be held – including the concept of storage media – the legislators of the time could not have imagined where technology would be today. For example, the originally-drafted MGDPA made reference to photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records. Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1. The current law still refers to these same mediums of data, despite cities no longer maintaining data in this manner. Technology has exploded, and the type of data collected by this new technology has multiplied. In our current reality, the public and government have been frustrated by how best to access government data. In Webster v. Hennepin County, 910 N.W. 2d 420 (Minn. 2018), the County was asked to conduct a computer-aided search of all its email accounts over multiple years for 20 separate search terms related to biometrics and facial recognition. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the County failed to establish procedures to ensure appropriate and prompt compliance with data requests but did not find that the County failed to keep its records in an arrangement and condition to make them easily accessible for convenient use. The Court also did not address if a term search was a valid data practices request or if a request could be unduly burdensome. The lack of direction from the Court on these issues leaves a void. There are also other advances in technology that are not comprehensively addressed by the MGDPA. While the Legislature has attempted to address technological advancements as they come, it has been in piecemeal ways. Response: The Legislature should update the MGDPA to comprehensively address technological changes since the Act was first enacted. Because the MGDPA is a complicated area of law, the Legislature should make changes based on the consensus recommendations from subject matter experts from all levels of government and interested stakeholders, including recommendations on what constitutes as a reasonable data practices League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 101 request and when a data practices request is unduly burdensome. DP-4. Maintaining Government Data in Large Databases Issue: The Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 10-016 issued in June 2010 maintains that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) requires cities to keep records containing public government data so that they can be easily accessible and convenient to use, regardless of how they are kept. Cities maintain that the application of this advisory opinion to large databases in which records are kept in an electronic format forces cities to risk the daily threat of allegations of noncompliance or leaves local government officials confused regarding how to apply the requirement for access to data in circumstances where information technology is utilized to facilitate the management and organization of records and information which often includes public, private, and nonpublic data within individual data sets. In addition, large databases today contain different forms of data, including video, audio, images, and social media. In responding to data practices requests, responsive data could be stored in multiple data bases. Further, with the advent of cloud-based information systems provided by the private sector, newer databases are not typically designed to be controlled by cities to easily separate public from non- public data. Response: The state of current technology requires cities to maintain large databases that are designed to provide secure data storage and maintenance. Those databases are already burdensome and expensive for cities to maintain, but are not available in a form in which public and private data can be easily separated. Requiring cities to design such databases to accommodate extensive data requests under MGDPA is both financially and technologically challenging to achieve. The Legislature should address the growing and costly impact on cities of providing access to specific public data housed in large electronic databases. Cities also require discretion in determining that the release of certain incident data could identify an individual whose identity must be protected. DP-5. Sharing of Student Data with Local Law Enforcement in Emergencies Issue: Minn. Stat. § 13.32, subd. 3(l), defines education data as private data that must not be disclosed except to the juvenile justice system in cases where information about the behavior of a student who poses a risk of harm is reasonably necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals. In addition, the federal Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) bars schools from disclosing information on student educational records that contains personally identifiable information without consent of a parent or eligible student, with only limited exceptions. Minn. Stat. § 13.32 does not adequately define who is responsible for making the determination that an emergency or risk of harm exists. As a result, school district officials have interpreted the statute in conjunction with the restrictions in FERPA to require that the determination be made solely by school officials. Local police officials are often frustrated in their efforts to investigate allegations of League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 102 criminal or other illegal activity when school officials refuse, under Minn. Stat. § 13.32, subd. 3(l), and FERPA, to provide information to follow up such complaints or to assist local police in solving crimes that have already taken place. School boards are responsible to have policies in place that require school officials to report a student who possesses an unlawful firearm to law enforcement or the juvenile justice system. But schools are not allowed to release the name of a student in dangerous weapon reports involving use or possession of such weapons that are made to the Minnesota Department of Education. Response: Minn. Stat. § 13.32 should be clarified to allow local law enforcement agencies to work with school officials to jointly make the determination that an emergency or risk of harm exists in order to enable police enforcement actions to be taken in a timely manner. DP-6. Disclosure of Victim Data Issue: Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), the name and address of a victim or casualty of an accident or incident to which a law enforcement agency responds is public government data. In addition, the name and location of the health care facility to which victims or casualties are taken is public government data. The MGDPA allows for a crime victim to prevent the disclosure of public data, but no such provision exists for accident victims. Accident victims and their families can be traumatized by the events that caused their injuries. Publicly disclosing their identities and the location where they are receiving medical care places a burden on families and victims who may be questioned by reporters, solicited by lawyers, and contacted by other members of the community. While there are legitimate public policy reasons to make this information public, the MGDPA provides no discretion for city officials and law enforcement to temporarily withhold victim data when releasing it is not in the best interest of the victims. This not only makes the initial period of recovery more difficult for victims, but erodes the trust between victims and state and local government. Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. § 13.82 to temporarily prohibit the disclosure of victim data if the victim or victim’s family specifically requests not to be identified publicly, and the agency or local government reasonably determines that access to the data would cause emotional or physical harm to the individual or otherwise impede the individual’s recovery. DP-7. Challenges to the Accuracy of Data Issue: The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) allows the subject of government data to challenge the accuracy or completeness of data maintained by the government entity. If the government entity denies the challenge, the Act allows the data subject to appeal that determination through a contested case proceeding under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). In the human resources context, a performance evaluation is a tool used to document and evaluate employee job performance. Performance evaluations are not discipline; however, some jurisdictions and some union contracts have appeal processes to challenge a performance evaluation. Performance evaluations are normally conducted once a year. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that a public employee could use the MGDPA to challenge the accuracy of League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 103 certain information contained in the employee’s performance evaluation. Schwanke v. Minn. Dept. of Admin., 851 N.W. 2d 591 (Minn. 2014). While the Court held that “dissatisfaction with a subjective judgment or opinion cannot support a challenge under the [MGDPA],” a data subject can still challenge data that supports the subjective judgment. There is currently no limitation on when a performance evaluation challenge may be brought. Often there is no retention period for the underlying data because it is rarely an official record. Furthermore, the more time that passes, the less likely those with the knowledge of a given performance evaluation may be still employed by the city. It is to everyone’s benefit to have the challenge to accuracy of data conducted as soon as possible. Under Schwanke, an invalid challenge to a subjective opinion can no longer be dismissed by the Department of Administration; it can only be dismissed in a contested-case proceeding. In even a frivolous challenge the data subject will have the right to submit evidence and call witnesses at taxpayer expense. This right of review is in addition to any union grievance process, and can be exercised by an employee before or after such a grievance is undertaken. This process can result in conflicting decisions and has the potential to create a heavy burden on all levels of government, and impose significant costs on taxpayers. Response: In light of the Schwanke decision, the Legislature should modify the data challenge provision of Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4, to balance the rights of data subjects to challenge the accuracy and completeness of data with the administrative and financial burdens on local governments and taxpayers. DP-8. Law Enforcement Technologies Issue: To aid law enforcement in work, law enforcement agencies need the flexibility to effectively use all available tools, including technology, in a manner that balances privacy interests of citizens, transparency of their work, and costs related to these technologies. The Legislature has balanced these concerns in the recent License Plate Readers law and the Police-Worn Body Camera law. License Plate Readers (LPRs) are an important tool that assist law enforcement agencies in locating wanted individuals, recover stolen vehicles, and many other types of investigations. Nevertheless, the use of this technology raises legitimate privacy concerns. In 2015, the Legislature passed compromise legislation regulating the use of LPRs, the classification of LPR data, and the retention period for LPR data that struck a fair balance between the need for robust law enforcement and individual privacy rights. Police-worn body cameras (or portable recording systems) provide invaluable evidence when investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals, and strengthened trust of citizens in law enforcement by increasing the accountability between peace officers and the public. Different than other kinds of data, body camera data use involves the unique complexities of the sensitive nature in its use in private homes as well as the sheer volume of data in daily use. In 2016, the Legislature contemplated all of these issues and passed compromise legislation regulating use of body cameras, classification of body camera data, retention period for body camera data, release of body camera data, audit requirements, and written policy requirements. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 104 Response: Cities and/or law enforcement agencies should be allowed to decide whether to utilize technology and be given the flexibility to decide how they are used in the field. The League supports the continued use of License Plate Readers under the terms of the 2015 legislation, and opposes any further restrictions on their use or any reduction in the current 60-day retention period. The League supports the continued use of Police-Worn Body Cameras under the terms of the 2016 legislation, and opposes any further restrictions on their use, data classification, retention period, or written policy requirements. DP-9. Rideshare Data Issue: As cities partner with private entities to provide greater service to our communities, the data practices implications become increasingly complicated. Cities appreciate the purpose behind the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, which is to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure while balancing the right of the public to know what the government is doing. Cities are starting to provide rideshare programs to help facilitate transportation for their residents. Along with providing such a service, rideshare data is collected by cities. Rideshare data is sensitive and personally identifiable. Without private classification, participant data would be made available upon request and could be used to identify, contact, and even locate a participant at a given time, which could be a threat to their safety and welfare. Currently, rideshare data collected by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council is classified as private data on individuals. These entities operate much like cities in that they provide publicly-funded transportation services. On September 5, 2018, a temporary data classification was approved by the Minnesota Department of Administration to temporarily classify this data as private. However, if the Legislature does not act in the upcoming legislative session, this data will be public. Response: To protect the privacy of individuals using city rideshare programs, the Legislature should consistently classify rideshare data collected by a city as private data, consistent with the data classification in state law for rideshare programs provided by other governmental entities. DP-10. Open Meeting Law Issue: The Open Meeting Laws allows certain meetings to be held using interactive television provided that: all members of the body can hear and see one another and all discussion and testimony; members of the public can see and hear all discussion, testimony, and votes; at least one member of the body is physically present at the regular meeting location; and each remote location is open and accessible to the public. The Minnesota Department of Administration issued an advisory opinion (13-009) that allowed a city’s use of Skype to conduct a remote meeting under Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 1. A “common sense” approach was applied to technology questions, which recognizes the difficulty cities must face when interpreting the Open Meeting Law in light of ever-changing technology. The Open Meeting Law also allows certain state bodies to conduct meetings via telephone and other electronic means, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.015. This useful tool should be expanded to local League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 105 government to assure that members can attend meetings remotely if attendance at the regular meeting site is not possible. In order to ensure maximum public access, the Legislature should require that such meetings be allowed only if a quorum of members of the body is present at the regular meeting location. The use of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media creates opportunities for cities to reach more constituents and to share more information faster than ever before. Social media creates new opportunities for citizen participation, and citizens increasingly expect that their elected officials will provide them with information via the internet and social media sites. This expectation is not always consistent with laws that require citizens to attend a meeting in order to participate in local government. The use of social medial by elected officials raises issues of compliance with laws that were drafted before social media existed, and increases the likelihood of unintentional violations. In recognition of these issues, the 2014 Legislature created a social media exemption to the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. § 13D.065, which states that the use of social media by members of a public body does not violate the law so long as the use is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the Department of Administration’s interpretation of the interactive television provision of the Open Meeting Law, and encourages the Legislature to authorize cities to conduct official meetings by telephone or other electronic means, as allowed by Minn. Stat. § 13D.015, provided that a quorum of members are present at the regular meeting site. The League supports the 2014 change to the Open Meeting Law, which grants cities and elected officials reasonable flexibility to use social media to communicate with citizens while maintaining the protections of the Open Meeting Law. The League opposes any change to the open meeting law that would expand the award of attorney’s fees to unintentional violations. DP-11. Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law Issue: The purpose of the Open Meeting Law generally requires that all meetings of public bodies must be open to the public. This presumption of openness serves three vital purposes: it prohibits actions from being taken at secret meetings, to assure the public’s right to be fully informed, and to afford the public an opportunity to present views to the public body. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the Open Meeting Law, and recognizes the important role it plays in maintaining the public trust and the accountability of elected officials. The Open Meeting Law must, however, balance the need for public information and the need to protect privacy rights and certain negotiation strategies to protect the use of public resources. Currently, there are seven exceptions to the open meeting laws that authorize the closure of meeting to the public. Under these exceptions, some meetings may be closed at the discretion of the governing body and some must be closed. Three challenges exist with current law. The first concern is the hiring process for management level positions. While existing law allows a governing body to close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 106 individual subject to its authority, the statute doesn’t grant the same level of privacy for the city council and prospective applicants. The statute should allow a governing body to close a meeting to interview applicants for employment if there is a quorum present; and, to allow a governing body to close a meeting to discuss the terms of an employment agreement to offer to a candidate to whom a job offer has been extended. This would be consistent with the existing authority for the governing body can to close a meeting to discuss labor negotiations strategy. Allowing a closed meeting so that a council can discuss the results of an interview process for a management-level position will allow council members to express opinions or ask questions they may have concerns about discussing in a public meeting, and preserves the integrity of the interview process of subsequent candidates. The second concern with existing law is the inability for public bodies to conduct strategic negotiations regarding public/private partnerships. Current law allows the public body to close a meeting to discuss the purchase or sale of property and labor negotiations but does not allow the public body to discuss terms and conditions of an agreement with private and/or non- profit organizations. The ability for public bodies to close meetings in these situations provides public bodies the opportunity to form strategies in the best financial interest of the community. Allowing public bodies to close meetings to discuss public/private partnerships would be consistent with the importance of negotiation regarding purchase or sale of property and labor contracts. The third concern is how to include city councilmembers wanting to participate in city council meetings but are unable to due to military deployment or serious health issues. While cities want elected officials to participate in city decision-making to their fullest extent, it is also important to protect the public’s right to see how government makes decisions. Currently under the interactive television exception to the Open Meeting Law in Minn. Stat. § 13D.02, subd. 1, city councilmembers can remotely participate in city council meetings if they meet certain requirements: (1) all councilmembers, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented; (2) members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of the members of the body; (3) at least one member of the city council is physically present at the regular meeting location; and (4) each location at which a city councilmember is present is open and accessible to the public. City councilmembers who are deployed or cannot attend city council meetings due to serious health issues are unable to meet this last requirement of making their remote location “open and accessible” to the public. Removing this last requirement in these limited situations will preserve the public’s ability to hear and see all discussion, testimony, and voting by all participating councilmembers while allowing willing councilmembers to participate in city decision-making. Response: The Legislature should amend the Open Meeting Law: a) To allow a governing body or a committee created by a governing body to close a meeting to interview candidates for management-level positions such as city manager, administrator, clerk-treasurer, city attorney, superintendent, or department head, and to close a League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 107 meeting to evaluate and discuss the candidates, and discuss salary and benefit negotiations. b) To allow a governing body to close a meeting to discuss negotiation strategies for proposed contracts and/or agreements with private and/or non-profit agencies. c) To allow city councilmembers to participate in city council meetings who are (1) serving in the military and are deployed, on active duty, or at a required drill or (2) cannot be in a public place for medical reasons, without making their remote location open and accessible to the public as otherwise required under Minn. Stat. § 13D.02, subd. 1. Such closed meetings should follow the same or similar procedures for conducting closed meetings currently required under the Open Meeting Law. Federal Employment Law FED-1. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) Issue: The federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) law, which requires employers to offer continued health and dental insurance group benefits after an employee terminates, has been interpreted to apply to Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). The application of COBRA benefits to these programs results in unlikely and impractical outcomes. Response: Congress should clarify the intended benefits to which COBRA law should apply, excluding EAP programs. FED-2. Flexible Spending Accounts Issue: Health care costs are rising dramatically and employees need financial relief. Flexible spending accounts provide some relief, but the current “use it or lose it” provision for medical spending discourages employees from participating in this program. In addition, the $5000 annual maximum limit on dependent care accounts has not increased substantially since the program’s inception in 1986 and childcare costs continue to rise significantly. According to 2012 data from the Pew Research Center, Minnesota has one of the highest childcare costs in the country with an average cost of $12,000 to $15,000 for infant care per year. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislation that would allow employees to roll unused funds over to the next plan year, or into a tax- qualified retirement plan, or a 457 plan. The League of Minnesota Cities also supports an increase in the annual maximum allowed for dependent care accounts, with a cost of living inflationary increase each year after the initial adjustment. FED-3. IRS Regulations on Death Benefits Issue: Current IRS regulations do not allow any type of death benefit to be included in a post-employment health savings plan and other tax-free funding vehicles. If the employee who owns the savings plan account dies, he or she cannot leave the remaining funds to a designated beneficiary (unless the beneficiary is a spouse or dependent child). If the employee does not have a spouse or dependent child, the funds are typically redistributed among plan League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 108 participants. A death benefit provision is an attractive feature for many employee groups. Response: IRS regulations should be changed to allow post-employment health savings plans and other tax-free vehicles for both active employees and retirees to include a provision that allows the employee to designate beneficiaries in addition to spouses or children. FED-4. Federal Public Safety Collective Bargaining Bill Issue: Congress is considering a bill that would require all states to establish collective bargaining procedures for all public safety employees. The bill directs the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to determine, state by state, whether it meets the bill’s requirements with regard to collective bargaining rights for public safety employees. While it appears Minnesota is likely to pass the tests set out by the bill, federal public sector lobbyists have expressed serious concern that the bill is very much open to interpretation. In addition, the bill directs the FLRA to “consider and give weight, to the maximum extent practicable, to the opinion of affected employee organizations.” Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes the federal collective bargaining bill for public sector employees. Public sector collective bargaining should be left to the determination of each state. FED-5. Federal Health Care Reform Issue: Certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as the federal health care reform law or Affordable Care Act (ACA)) are problematic for cities. These issues range from administratively difficult to very costly. Tracking employee hours, particularly hours of seasonal and temporary employees and council members, is burdensome and will require significant administrative time and effort. Because most of these employees will not qualify for coverage under the ACA, the effort does not result in a worthwhile outcome. There are also situations where employees who are currently working more than 30 hours per week in a city will now be eligible for health care coverage by that city, which will drive up city costs significantly, particularly for cities using the “duty crew” concept at fire stations to ensure adequate daytime response. Finally, there are provisions which require the city to offer coverage to full-time students who are already covered by their parents’ insurance and do not need the coverage through the city, which results in wasted effort. Furthermore, cities that provide health insurance coverage to their employees should not be subject to the federal excise or so-called Cadillac Tax, which will result in substantial costs to Minnesota taxpayers. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the intent of the ACA to provide affordable health care coverage to all Minnesota residents. However, prior to implementation, Congress should: a) Exempt employees under age 26 who are covered by their parents’ insurance; b) Exempt (from coverage requirements) employees who work in recreational facilities and programs owned and operated by governmental entities; c) Exempt elected officials from being counted as “employees” for the purposes of the ACA; and d) Revise the provisions of the federal excise “Cadillac Tax” so that it does League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 109 not penalize employers and instead provides incentives to strengthen wellness and disease prevention effort. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 110 IMPROVING FISCAL FUTURES FF-1. State-Local Fiscal Relations Issue: Since the 1970s, services provided by Minnesota cities have been largely funded through a combination of property taxes, state aids, and state property tax relief programs. This system of municipal finance has evolved to ensure that municipal services can be funded without excessive local tax burdens. Over the past decade, the state-local partnership has vacillated with the state budget, challenging the ability of city officials to plan for the future fiscal needs of their communities. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports a strong state-local fiscal partnership. The state-local fiscal system, and any future modifications, should be consistent with the following principles: Accountability. Cities believe a viable partnership with the state requires cities and the state to communicate effectively with each other and with the public about their roles and responsibilities. Cities and the state must also exercise sound financial stewardship, including maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and other means of cost containment whenever possible. Certainty. Cities need to have more certainty and predictability in all of their available revenue sources, including the property tax and the amount of funding they receive from local government aid and similar programs. The current practice of almost annual adjustments to local government aid (LGA) and similar programs, recent unallotments of the appropriation and the imposition of levy limits do not allow for prudent financial planning and decisions. In addition, the 2011 state government shutdown further decreased the certainty of the system when the Department of Revenue indicated that despite the standing LGA appropriation, the shutdown of many state government operations would prevent the distribution of the LGA. Adequacy. The revenue sources available to cities and the state must raise adequate funds to meet city needs, to fund mandates, and to maintain Minnesota’s long-term competitiveness. Flexibility. As cities become increasingly diverse in their characteristics and as existing aid and credit programs have eroded, a “one-size-fits-all” system that limits all cities to the property tax as the major, non-state aid revenue source is increasingly unworkable. Some cities have sufficient property tax base to sustain an adequate service level, but many do not. Cities should have greater access to other tax and revenue sources than currently permitted. Equity. All citizens should receive adequate levels of municipal services at relatively similar levels of taxation. This means that the state should provide financial assistance to cities that have high costs, including costs related to overburden created by non-resident users of city services, low fiscal capacity, or both. State financial assistance should also reduce tax burden disparities among communities and between cities and surrounding areas. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 111 FF-2. Economic Contributions by Cities Issue: Cities provide and maintain the physical infrastructure as well as the social and economic infrastructure necessary to support a large share of the state’s economic activity. In addition, cities play a major role in statewide economic development activities that assist businesses with expansion and job creation. The importance of cities to the overall vitality of the state’s economy is frequently overlooked in state policy discussions. Response: To provide lawmakers with information on the economic activity occurring within cities, the Department of Revenue should annually collect and compile information on major state tax collections within each city, in addition to county and regional reports. FF-3. State Budget Stability Issue: In recent years, the Legislature has faced repeated budget deficits. Legislative actions to address these deficits have included permanent reductions in funding to local units of government for programs such as local government aid as well as the full elimination of programs such as the market value homestead credit. In addition, the Legislature has frequently relied on short- term solutions that have only shifted a large share of the deficit problem into the next biennium. These actions merely shift state budget problems to local units of government without permanently addressing the state budget problems. The legislature has taken steps to reduce state budget volatility. As required under state law, 33 percent of any state general fund budget surplus identified in the November state budget forecast must be directed to the state budget reserve until the account reaches a targeted level. Response: To increase the stability of the state budget and avoid or reduce the impact of future state budget deficits, the Legislature: a) Must consider all options, including revenue increases, with a particular focus on changes that increase state revenues and improve the stability of the state's revenue stream; b) Must not further reduce funding for property tax relief programs to cities; c) Must not accelerate the remittance of sales tax collections by retailers including municipal liquor operations, and should make steps to reverse past accelerations; d) Must consider the aggregate impact on Minnesota taxpayers of previous budget cuts and tax increases; e) Must reinstate estimates of inflationary increases to expenditure estimates; f) Should continue to build at a minimum, a five-percent budget reserve and should establish state budget stability as a state priority. This includes prioritizing state budget stability ahead of sending back tax rebate checks as was done in 2000; g) Should modify the unallotment statute to place a reasonable statutory limit on the percentage and timing of the state’s budget that can be unallotted during a biennium without legislative approval; and h) Must emphasize long-term budget solutions and budget stability and the continuation of both state and local government operations. i) The League of Minnesota Cities supports the principle of representative democracy and opposes limiting the Legislature’s flexibility in League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 112 making financial decisions through new Constitutional amendments. FF-4. Funding Local Government Aid Issue: Local government aid (LGA) is an important component in the state’s property tax relief system, and a critical tool to help equalize tax base to ensure needs for public services can be met. To avoid undue pressure on the propert y tax, funding for LGA must keep pace with inflationary pressures. Since 2013, the legislature has restored a total of $107 million in funding for LGA and updated the formula to reflect recent fiscal and demographic data. For 2018 and beyond, the LGA appropriation is frozen at $534.4 million. For 2019, the total unmet formula need (the difference between need and ability to raise revenue) is $814.6 million, leaving the current appropriation $280.2 million below the total unmet need. During the 2017-18 biennium, several bills were introduced that would have, for example, created offsets to a city’s LGA distribution if the city imposed a local sales tax, spent funds for activities related to lobbying or a World’s Fair, or would have reduced or eliminated LGA if the city enacted ordinances to ban plastic bags, impose certain local labor laws, ordinances, or policies that restrict city employees from enforcing immigration laws, unauthorized ordinances related to diversion programs. Such changes would have been a significant deviation from the practice of using the formula to distribute LGA and could have jeopardized the long-term stability of the program. Currently, LGA payments are made to cities on July 20 and December 26 each year. This distribution occurs late in the city fiscal year and can create short-term cash flow challenges for some cities. In 2017the Legislature included a one-time acceleration that will distribute 14.6 percent of each city’s 2019 LGA in June. Response: In order to reduce pressure on the property tax, and to equalize property tax bases, the League of Minnesota Cities continues to support the existing LGA formula as the appropriate mechanism to distribute LGA resources and opposes artificial limits on any city or group of cities. In addition, the League supports an increase in the LGA appropriation to at least the level that would have been provided prior to the 2003 cuts, including the restoration of the annual inflation adjustment and ongoing appropriation increases to the LGA formula to move toward funding the total unmet need of all cities. The League also supports an acceleration of the annual LGA distribution to assist cities with cash flow needs. Increases to the LGA appropriation should be distributed based on the formula. The League opposes targeted reductions to specific cities as well as reductions or offsets for local policy or expenditure decisions. The legislature should avoid creating side-pots or special appropriations through the LGA (Minn. Stat. ch. 477A) program. If special circumstances such as a natural disaster warrant additional state assistance to specific cities, the criteria for the additional aid should be specifically enumerated and the appropriation should be separate and in addition to the appropriation through the general LGA formula. FF-5. State Charges for Administrative Services Issue: Currently, some state agencies have wide discretion in setting the fees for special services they provide to local governments. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 113 Response: State agencies should be required to justify their service fees or for increases in existing service fees and not charge more than what is fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the cost of service. Agencies should give adequate notice of increases to allow local governments to budget for the increases. State agencies should set administrative service fees as close as possible to the marginal cost of providing the service. Local government should be given the option to self- administer or contract with the private sector for the service if the state cannot provide the service at a reasonable cost. FF-6. Reporting Requirements Issue: Budget and financial reporting requirements imposed on cities by the state often result in duplication and additional costs. In addition to the state mandated annual audits under Minn. Stat. §§ 471.697- .698, cities are required to prepare and submit or publish numerous other budget and financial reports including but not limited to: a) Summary budget reports (Minn. Stat. § 6.745); b) Treasurers report to the city clerk (Minn. Stat. § 412.141); c) Statement of tax collections and other income by clerk to the city council (Minn. Stat. § 471.69); d) Report on outstanding obligations and the purpose for each issue filed with the county auditor (Minn. Stat. § 471.70); e) Publication of summary budget statement (Minn. Stat. § 471.6965); f) Publication of statement of liquor store operations (Minn. Stat. § 477A.017); g) Liquor store audited financial statements (Minn. Stat. § 471.6985); h) TIF district plan and amendments (Minn. Stat. § 469.175, subd. 4a); i) TIF district annual disclosure (Minn. Stat. § 469.175, subd. 5); j) TIF district annual financial report (Minn. Stat. § 469.175, subd. 6); k) Business subsidy reporting (Minn. Stat. §§ 116J.993-.995); l) State required financial activity reports (Minn. Stat. § 6.74); m) Local improvement requirements (Minn. Stat. § 429.031); n) Development and permit fees report (Minn. Stat. § 326B.145); o) Utility annual financial statements (Minn. Stat. § 412.381); p) Housing and redevelopment authority annual financial report (Minn. Stat. § 469.013); and q) Federal single audit or a program- specific audit (31 U.S.C. § 7502 (a)(1)). Many cities have expanded the availability of information on their web sites in response to citizen requests and some cities have begun using new tools to assist citizens in understanding the city budget. Expanding state mandated financial reporting requirements could force cities to redirect scarce resources to the state mandate and stifle innovative ways to communicate with citizens. Response: Requirements for reporting and advertising financial and budget information should be carefully weighed to balance the need for information with the administrative costs of compiling and submitting this information. In addition, the legislature should direct all state agencies to review existing local government reporting mandates and eliminate redundant or superfluous requirements. To this point, the legislature should consolidate municipal government financial reporting requirements in the Office of State Auditor, include an electronic submission alternative to any remaining paper filing League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 114 requirements and authorize the use of web publication where newspaper publication is currently required. Finally, the legislature must not increase reporting burdens for local units of government. Any new reporting requirement should have a clearly defined statement of purpose and public need not currently met with existing reports, a sunset date to facilitate a future discussion of the usefulness of the requirement as well as full state funding for the costs associated with a new reporting mandate. FF-7. Direct Property Tax Relief Programs Issue: In 2013, the legislature expanded the homeowner property tax refund (PTR) program and renamed it the Homestead Credit Refund program. As a direct taxpayer relief program, the Homestead Credit Refund avoids the problems with the former Market Value Homestead Credit system where the state provided a credit on the homeowner’s property tax statement but did not always reimburse cities and counties for the amount of the credit. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports providing additional, direct property tax relief through an expansion of the Homestead Credit Refund program, the renters’ refund program, the targeting program or other programs that provide property tax relief directly from the state to taxpayers. In addition, the League supports the 2013 legislation that requires the Department of Revenue to notify potentially eligible homeowners of the program and would also support legislative modifications to these programs to eliminate the taxpayer filing requirement thereby making the tax relief payments automatic. The League opposes property tax credit programs that reimburse local units of government for reduced tax burden such as the former market value homestead credit system due to the fact that the reimbursements to local units of government can be cut while the credit to the taxpayer remains on the property tax statement. In addition, the League opposes reinstituting Limited Market Value, a program that reduces the taxable value of individual properties based on assessor’s valuation increase. Limited Market Value creates inequities between similar properties based solely on the valuation increase determined by the assessor. FF-8. Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases Issue: The local government sales tax exemption enacted in 2013 and expanded in 2014 does not apply to all city purchases. Some purchases for municipal enterprise operations, such as liquor stores and golf courses are excluded from the exemption. In addition, in order to receive the sales tax exemption on construction materials under current law, cities must bid labor and materials separately and also designate a contractor to be a purchasing agent on behalf of the city. The existing Department of Revenue rules (Minnesota Rules 8130.1200, subp. 3) are complex and the implementation can be so complicated that it can cost cities more money to implement than they will save on the tax exemption. Finally, although cities currently do not pay the motor vehicle sales tax on marked police vehicles or firefighting vehicles, other city vehicles are not exempt from the motor vehicle sales tax. Response: In order to ensure that taxpayers receive the full benefit of the local government sales tax exemption: League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 115 a) The exemption should apply to all purchases made by local units of government; b) The process to receive the exemption for construction materials should be simplified or converted into a refund process; and c) The exemption should be extended to all local government purchases that would otherwise be subject to the motor vehicle sales tax in Minn. Stat. ch. 297B. FF-9. Taxation of Electronic Commerce Issue: The 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), overturned two earlier Supreme Court decisions, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) and National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), that had prevented states from requiring retailers without a physical presence from collecting state and local sales taxes on purchases made by state residents and businesses. A group of 23 states participating in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project have worked together for more than 18 years to simplify the administration of state and local sales taxes and reduce the administrative burden on retailers. The success of this project was referenced in the Wayfair decision. Despite the Supreme Court’s Wayfair decision, new legal challenges could be filed by remote retailers or Congress could intervene to address remaining sales tax administration issues including the fact that more than 20 states with sales taxes have not adopted the SSUTP standards. Response: Federal tax policy should not place main street businesses at a competitive disadvantage to electronic retailers, must not jeopardize repayment of bonds backed by state and local sales tax revenues, and should ensure stability in state and local revenues. To address the challenges created by the growth of electronic commerce, the League of Minnesota Cities continues to support the multi-state effort to develop a streamlined sales tax system. Should Congress intervene, the League would support nation-wide sales tax administration standards based on the model developed by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. The League will oppose Congressional efforts to reverse remote retailer collection requirements. FF-10. Local Lodging Taxes Issue: In 2011, the legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 297A.61 to define accommodation intermediaries and clarified that their services are subject to the state sales tax as part of the tax imposed on lodging. Local lodging taxes collected by the state for local units of government under Minn. Stat. § 469.190, subd. 7, also clearly apply to services provided by these accommodation intermediaries since these taxes are required under Minn. Stat. § 270C.171 to use the definition for tax base contained in the general sales tax statute. Since 2011, some accommodation intermediaries have not been collecting and remitting locally-administered lodging taxes based on the full cost of the accommodation plus the accommodation intermediary services. There are currently 120 cities and towns that individually or jointly impose lodging taxes for tourism purposes under Minn. Stat. § 469.190. Another five cities impose a lodging tax that is administered locally under special law. Four local lodging taxes are currently administered by the state. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 116 Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports legislation that will clarify that all lodging taxes, whether administered by the state or administered locally, apply to the total charges to the customer, including charges for services provided by accommodation intermediaries. FF-11. Taxation of Electric Generation Personal Property Issue: Investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have a longstanding relationship with Minnesota cities. IOUs site baseload power plants in host communities, and in exchange pay personal property tax on attached generation machinery to the cities, counties and school districts hosting the plants. These plants bring jobs to our communities, but they also create nuisances such as air pollution, nuclear waste, noise, vibration, and coal train traffic. They also create security risks and take up land that could be used for other, less disruptive commercial and industrial development. Cities believe personal property taxes paid by IOUs are a fair compensation for the environmental and economic costs of hosting baseload power plants. IOUs argue that personal property tax relief is important to pass along to their shareholders and ratepayers. However, only a few IOU shareholders and ratepayers actually live in the communities hosting baseload power plants. Further, almost all new power plants receive personal property tax exemptions from the Legislature, while host communities with existing, non-exempt baseload plants will continue to have them for decades to come. Currently the taxation of electric generation personal property represents the best method for reimbursing host communities for the cost of hosting IOUs. However, a 2015 MN Department of Revenue study on electric generation taxation has generated proposals to change the state system of taxing electric generation which raise equal or greater revenues for host cities. Response: Personal property taxes on attached electric generation machinery are a fair way to spread the environmental and economic costs of electric generation power plants among all IOU shareholders and ratepayers. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the continuation of personal property taxes paid by IOUs to host communities for existing and new facilities or a tax system which generates equal or greater revenue for host communities. As the Department of Revenue analyzes methods of utility taxation in its Study of Electric Energy Producing Systems (Session Law 2014, Chapter 308), the League supports the inclusion of these environmental and economic costs in assessing the appropriate property taxes paid to host cities by electric generation facilities. FF-12. Electric Generation Taxation Reform Issue: Currently, electric utilities are subject to a personal property tax on personal property which is part of an electric generating, transmission, or distribution system. This tax has a number of exemptions and exclusions which make a patchwork of taxation statewide. The Department of Revenue issued a report on February 15, 2015 which laid out the details of this tax system, stating, “The utility tax base comprised of these energy producing facilities is not predictable. The unpredictability is a result of law and rule changes that determine the amount of utility tax base available for host communities.” League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 117 Cities which host Investor Owned Utility base load power plants have faced unpredictability in tax base from both changes to state law regarding the personal property tax on electric generation equipment and from changes in valuation due to the upgrade/depreciation cycle of equipment. The Minnesota Legislature has introduced a reform to the system of taxing electric generation. It repeals the personal property tax and all of its exclusions and exemptions, and replaces it with an “electric generation tax base” which is subject to local property taxes. This proposal also repeals the personal property tax on transmission and distribution and creates a “Valuation for Electric Transmission Line Tax Base,” a “Valuation for Electric Substation Tax Base” and an “Electric Distribution Line Tax Base.” The proposal defines the tax base for electric generation in a new way for electric generation plants which use coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear fission, biomass and flowing water to generate electricity. Under the proposal, the Department of Revenue would annually assess the tax base of electric generation machinery under a set of statutory formulas. The new valuation which replaces the value of electric generating equipment is based on a combination of an individual facility’s nameplate capacity, average energy production and amount of nuclear waste storage. The proposal also replaces the taxable value of electric transmission and distribution with statutory formulas. The Department of Revenue would assess the value of the “electric transmission line tax base” according to the number of miles of electric transmission within the taxing jurisdiction, the value of the “electric substation tax base according to the sum of the capacity of a substation, and the value of the “electric distribution line tax base” according to the number of customers in the taxing jurisdiction that receives an electric distribution. These new tax bases define the value for purposes of the ad valorem tax of hosting jurisdictions. Factors such as inflation affect the expenses of host cities, so any proposal to change the system of taxing electric generation should account for changes in value over time, using an independently reported adjustment factor for changing values over time. Statutory changes to the system of electric generation taxation should not adversely affect host city tax revenues. Any proposal to change the system must include some form of replacement aid which compensates cities for adverse effects due to changing state law on electric generation taxation. Response: The personal property tax on electric generation equipment as well as the exemptions, exclusions and sliding scales to that tax represent a patchwork of taxation rules statewide. Changes to state law which replace the personal property tax on electric generation equipment with a tax base valuation based on electric generation capacity, production, nuclear storage, transmission, and distribution will benefit IOU host cities so long as the change comes with a factor to increase the tax base valuation over time and reimbursement to cities for revenues lost due to a change in state law. FF-13. Support for Transitioning Communities Issue: Technological advancements and market forces are rapidly changing the electric generation industry. Investor-owned League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 118 utilities (IOUs) in Minnesota are increasing the share of their electric generation portfolios that are made up of renewable generation sources like wind and solar, while planning to decrease the share of electric generation that is derived from baseload power plants that produce energy from coal or nuclear sources. Due to the deep and longstanding relationship IOUs have with some Minnesota cities, the possible retirement of these power plants stands to have a significant disruptive effect on these cities. Cities that host baseload power plants make significant investments to support those plants, including infrastructure, public safety, and disaster preparedness. To compensate for this, IOUs pay personal property tax on electric generation machinery. For some cities, these revenues can account for over 50% of the city’s annual budget. Moreover, IOUs have other significant direct and indirect impacts on host communities. IOUs tend to employ significant numbers of employees at baseload power plants. Those employees are likely to live, work, attend school, and shop in and around the local community. Therefore, the retirement of these plants would have significant negative impacts on these communities. While the power that is generated at these facilities goes to support the entire state of Minnesota, the impacts of hosting these plants is felt most acutely in these local communities. Therefore, state lawmakers should partner with these communities and support their transition in the event that these baseload power plants are retired by the IOUs. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes that the energy landscape is rapidly changing and supports state policies to replace tax base in communities facing the closure of a baseload power plant, as well as other policies or programs to help those communities replace their local tax base through economic development. The League of Minnesota Cities also support efforts by the state legislature to study, analyze, and design policy solutions to address the unique challenges these communities face. FF-14. Taxation of Municipal Bond Interest Issue: The federal and state laws that grant a tax exemption to bondholders for municipal bond interest lowers borrowing costs for cities and reduces property tax levies. Recent proposed Internal Revenue Service rules would potentially restrict some local government entities such as housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities and port authorities from issuing tax exempt bonds. Response: Congress and the state should maintain the tax exemption for municipal bond interest income. Congress should also clarify the law to supersede proposed IRS rules and thereby continue to allow housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities and port authorities to issue tax exempt debt. FF-15. Pollution Control Exemption Issue: Minnesota grants electric utilities and several other industries a property tax exemption for personal and real property that is primarily used for pollution control. Minnesota adopted the property tax exemption that now extends to electrical generation systems, agricultural operations, and wastewater treatment facilities in 1967, before water and air pollution were heavily League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 119 regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The language and the purpose of these statutes have evolved through the years. When states first began adopting these tax incentives in the 1960s, they hoped to encourage utilities, industrial plants, and others to install pollution control equipment. Gradually, as regulation increased, states adopted the exemptions to help companies offset the cost of the equipment. This tax benefit erodes local tax bases. In 2013, more than $1.8 billion of personal and real property for electrical generation was exempted from the market value of utilities. The incentive value of this benefit is low because utility companies are required to install the equipment anyway. In addition, these companies frequently recover the cost of the equipment through rate riders granted by the Public Utilities Commission. Allowing the pollution control equipment exemption places the cost of this equipment on the citizens of the host community, rather than the purchasers of electricity. Response: The pollution control exemption places an undue burden on host communities without incentivizing the environmentally responsible behavior that it was originally created to encourage. The League of Minnesota Cities supports narrowing or eliminating the pollution control equipment exemption for investor owned electric generation facilities. The League would also support allowing utilities to continue to recover their costs relating to the pollution control equipment by spreading those costs to electricity users. FF-16. Local Elected Officials Authority to Establish Local Budgets Issue: In 2015, the House omnibus tax bill included a reverse referendum provision that would allow a small number of voters (ten percent of those voting in the last general election) to petition for a referendum on a general city property tax levy increase. The outcome of the election could reverse the decision of the local elected officials on the local budget and property tax levy after months of planning and public hearings. As recently as the 2013 legislative session, the legislature imposed levy limits on cities over 2,500 population for one year. Levy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of local taxation and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a negative effect on a city’s bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility. Levy limits also fail to account for the decertification of tax increment financing districts. Upon decertification, the property taxes that were formerly collected and used to support the public improvements in the TIF district can no longer be collected at the same rate and used to support ongoing general city operations. Response: Local elected officials are elected to make decisions about local budgets and meeting community needs. The League finds that it is inappropriate for the Legislature to undermine local elected officials’ decision-making and accountability through the continued imposition of levy limits or by enacting proposals such as a reverse referendum requirement or the “taxpayers’ bill of rights.” The League of Minnesota Cities League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 120 supports the principle of representative democracy that allows local elected officials to formulate local budgets without state or other restrictions. FF-17. Tax Hearing and Notification Process Issue: Cities must set a preliminary levy by September 30, which is the levy used to compute the parcel-specific property tax notification forms. With only a few limited exemptions (e.g., voter-approved levies, levies for natural disasters and levies for certain tort judgments), this preliminary levy, by law, becomes the maximum that cities can levy the following year. As a result, cities may be unable to budget for unforeseen needs that arise after September 30. The 2009 Legislature eliminated the separate tax hearing requirement and replaced it with a requirement that the public be allowed to speak at a regularly scheduled meeting on the budget and tax levy. These changes erroneously repealed an exception to the tax hearing and notification process for cities adopting their levies at or less than the current rate of inflation. With the major property tax changes enacted by the Legislature in 2011, city officials have found it difficult to explain to local taxpayers not only the effects of their budget and levy decisions but also the separate effects of the actions of the state Legislature. The 2017 Legislature moved the proposed levy certification date for most instrumentalities of local governments and special taxing districts from September 15th to September 30th. Response: Cities should have the authority to increase the final levy from the preliminary levy with the approval of the commissioner of the Department of Revenue, to meet additional, unforeseen and uncontrollable needs, including arbitrator awards resulting from labor negotiations, the impact of new and existing federal or state mandates including administrative rules, or other non-discretionary budget factors. The tax hearing and notification law should be carefully reviewed to assure that the legislative intent is reflected in the statutes. Specifically, the League of Minnesota Cities supports the following: a) Modifying Minn. Stat. § 275.065 to clearly and fully exclude cities of population 500 and under from the budget and levy hearing requirements; b) Reinstating the exception to the tax hearing and notification requirements for cities with more than 500 residents with a proposed levy increase below the implicit price deflator (IPD); and In order to assist local officials with the challenge of explaining legislative changes to the property tax system, legislators should attend and be encouraged to participate in local government budget hearings in their districts. FF-18. General Election Requirement for Ballot Questions Issue: Under current state law, when cities are required to seek voter approval on a ballot question or where statutes allow voters to petition for an election on a council action (reverse referendum), these referenda can generally be held at a general or special election. This flexibility allows cities to respond to local circumstances in a timely manner. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 121 During the 2015 legislative session, the House omnibus tax bill included language that would have required referenda on most ballot questions be restricted to the November general election. If enacted, this requirement could limit the ability of cities to respond to unanticipated events or to undertake projects in a timely and cost- efficient manner. Response: Cities should be allowed to conduct elections on ballot questions at a date and time set by the city council and that complies with existing election notification statutes. FF-19. Municipal Liquor Store Continuation Issue: Under Minn. Stat. § 340A.602, any city where a municipal liquor store reports a net loss prior to interfund transfer in any two of three consecutive years, must hold a public hearing to discuss whether the city continues the operation of the liquor store. After the hearing, the city council, or the voters by petition, can require a vote on whether to continue the liquor store operations. Under recent financial accounting changes required by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), local government employers are required to acknowledge unfunded pension liabilities in their financial reporting. This long-term liability can significantly fluctuate from year-to-year and result in an otherwise profitable municipal liquor store operation being required to conduct a hearing on the continuation of operations. Response: The net loss test under Minn. Stat. § 340A.602 should be amended to exclude pension liabilities under the Government Accountings Standards Board Statement No. 68. FF-20. City Fund Balances Issue: As a component of a prudent financial management plan, cities maintain a fund balance composed of cash flow funds, savings for projects, and rainy day reserves to maintain high level bond ratings and to minimize borrowing costs. Although the size of a city’s fund balance should be determined through local financial needs and local preferences, some cities are being criticized for maintaining “excessive” reserves. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) report measures city fund balances on December 31, shortly after the city receives its largest sources of revenue from the property tax and state aid distributions. Measuring at this time, however, yields a picture of a high fund balance even though the city will spend down these funds to cash flow the next five to six months of its operations. Response: The state should respect local decisions on adequacy of local fund balances. The League of Minnesota Cities opposes any attempt to divert local reserves to benefit the state budget. FF-21. Local Option Sales Tax and City Revenue Diversification Issue: Under current state law, the property tax is the only generally accessible form of local tax revenue for cities. Even with the restoration of $107 million in LGA funding since 2013, state aid funding remains below the 2002 funding level. Allowing cities to diversify their revenue stream would help prevent rapid additional future reliance on the property tax. The basic public finance rationale for diversification of local tax systems is rooted in the fact that economists generally agree League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 122 that there is no perfect tax. Each tax has unique strengths and weaknesses and the more intensively any single tax type is used, the more obvious its shortcomings become. For example, the property tax is generally regarded as being very stable throughout the economic cycle and it is considered to be a relatively easy tax to administer and enforce. However, when property tax burdens become too high, there may be negative consequences for other public policy objectives such as business development and home ownership. In addition to avoiding the problems created by excessive reliance on any single tax, a balanced and diversified revenue system for Minnesota cities may create a more favorable business climate and provide for greater stability of revenues to the recipient government unit throughout the course of the economic cycle. Under Minn. Stat. § 297A.99, the Legislature has created a set of local sales tax rules and a defined process by which cities and other political subdivisions can impose a general local option sales tax. Although the statutory process requires the city council to adopt a resolution supporting the local sales tax and also requires the city to seek voter approval of the sales tax at a general election, the process continues to require the final authorization of the local sales tax by the Legislature through the passage of a special law. In 2017, the legislature granted local sales tax authority to seven additional cities. Response: Cities should be able to diversify their sources of revenues. The League of Minnesota Cities continues to support a statutory change that will allow a city to enact a local sales tax for public improvements and capital replacement costs, including but not limited to those specified in the 2017 legislation: a) Convention or civic centers; b) Public libraries; c) Parks, trails, and recreational facilities; d) Overpasses, arterial and collector roads, or bridges, on, adjacent to, or connecting to a Minnesota state highway; e) Railroad overpasses or crossing safety improvements; f) Transportation infrastructure improvements, including construction, repair of roadways, bridges and airports; g) Flood control and protection; h) Water quality projects to address groundwater and drinking water pollution problems; i) Court facilities; j) Fire, law enforcement, or public safety facilities; or k) Municipal buildings. Local sales taxes would follow the process outlined in Minn. Stat. § 297A.99 but without the need for the approval by the Legislature and governor through the passage of special legislation. The League supports allowing the referendum to be conducted at either a general or a special election. State law should also be modified to generally authorize any city to impose other types of taxes such as a local payroll tax or an entertainment tax with the adoption of a supporting resolution by the city council and after approval by the voters at a general or special election. In addition, Minn. Stat. § 469.190 should amended to allow cities to impose up to a five percent local lodging tax and to allow cities to modify the uses of their local lodging tax revenues to meet local needs. Cities should also have general authority to create utilities, similar to the storm League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 123 sewer utility authority, in order to fund local services where benefit or usage of the service can be measured. FF-22. City Franchise Authority Issue: Under Minn. Stat. ch. 216B and Minn. Stat. § 301B.01, a city may require a public utility furnishing gas or electric utility services or occupying streets, highways or other public property within a municipality to obtain a franchise to operate within the community. In addition, cable system operators are required to obtain a franchise under Minn. Stat. ch. 238. Under a franchise, the city may require the utility to pay a fee to the municipality to raise revenue or to defray increased municipal costs, such as maintenance and reconstruction costs, accruing as a result of utility operations, or both. State law currently allows the franchise fee to be based upon gross operating revenues or gross earnings of the utility from its operations in the municipality. In this manner, all utility users within the municipality contribute to the public costs associated with the utility operation. In the absence of franchise fees, municipal costs resulting from utility operations are currently being funded by property tax payers. Many cities also have policies related to utility company services and products that could be supported under conditions of a franchise agreement, such as local renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. Current statutes do not explicitly provide city authority to include those types of performance conditions in a franchise agreement. Under current law, cities are permitted to engage citizens when discussing a new or renewed franchise fee arrangement in the manner that best fits the community. A recent legislative proposal would have added a prescriptive notification and reverse referendum requirement to the process of imposing or renewing a franchise agreement with a gas or an electric utility. Response: Municipal authority to collect franchise fee revenues from utilities is an important and equitable mechanism to offset the costs of maintaining public right-of-way and to generate a return on a publicly held asset. Municipal franchise authority must be preserved and should be expanded to allow city policy priorities to be addressed through conditions in franchise agreements that have the cost covered by local ratepayers, where appropriate, and can be accomplished within the local franchise boundaries. The League opposes adding a one-size-fits-all notification requirement and a reverse referendum procedure to the gas and electric franchise fee process. In addition, in situations where a local provider decides to sell their operations, the city must have the right of first refusal to purchase the assets of the utility. FF-23. Utility Valuation Transition Aid Issue: In 2007, the Minnesota Department of Revenue revised its rules regarding the valuation of electric and natural gas utility property. This change in the rules resulted in valuation changes for utility property that dramatically reduced the amount of revenue that local governments will collect in property tax from these utilities. Recognizing that the communities that host these utilities bear extraordinary burdens connected with stress on local infrastructure, public safety, and public nuisance due to the presence of these facilities in their League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 124 communities, the Legislature created the Utility Valuation Transition Aid program. This program compensates host communities that have lost more than 4 percent of their net tax capacity as a result of Department of Revenue’s rule changes. Currently the taxation of electric generation personal property represents the best method for reimbursing host communities for the cost of hosting IOUs. However, a 2015 MN Department of Revenue study on electric generation taxation has generated proposals to change the state system of taxing electric generation which raise equal or greater revenues for host cities. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports the continuation of the Utility Valuation Transition Aid program and opposes any efforts to change statutory language or to divert promised funds away from host communities for any purpose unless statutory language replaces promised funds with equal or greater revenue to host communities. If the Legislature does determine that it is necessary to re-allocate the funds in the Utility Valuation Transition Aid program for another purpose, the League supports other legislative efforts that would compensate the host communities for the economic and environmental costs of hosting these facilities through reimbursement from the investor owned utilities. These other efforts could include, but are not limited to, increasing the class rate on utility property to the extent that it would offset the negative effects of the utility valuation rule change. FF-24. State Assistance for Property Tax Refunds for State- Assessed Property Issue: State law requires certain property, including pipelines, railroad, utility property be assessed for property taxation purposes by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. When companies challenge the valuation of these properties, local units of government may be required to refund excess taxes, which in some cases, can create financial hardship for local units of government and their taxpayers. Response: The state should establish a program to provide financial compensation to all units of local government for court ordered property tax refunds where the state has determined values. FF-25. Transition for Property Acquired by Tax-Exempt Entities Issue: When an existing taxable property is acquired by a tax-exempt entity other than a city or a city development authority or otherwise becomes tax exempt and removed from the tax base, the taxes formerly paid by the property owner are shifted to other, remaining taxable properties within the jurisdiction. When the acquired property is a large percentage of the tax base of a city or other local unit of government, the shift in taxes can be substantial. Response: To avoid immediate, large tax burden shifts when an existing taxable property is acquired by an entity qualifying for a Minnesota property tax exemption other than a city or a city development authority or overwise becomes tax exempt, state law should require the new owner to continue to pay the property taxes with a five-year phase- out of taxable value or the state legislature should create a program that provides a state-paid transition aid paid over a period of time to local units of government that experience tax exempt acquisitions, paid over a period of time. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 125 FF-26. Payments for Services to Tax-Exempt Property Issue: Taxable property in many cities is being acquired by nonprofit and government entities. Converting the property to tax- exempt status can lead to serious tax base erosion without any corresponding reduction in the service needs created by the property. In 2013, legislation was introduced that would have broadly exempted non-profit property from paying user fees or service charges for any service funded in part with property taxes over the previous five years. Under certain circumstances, this proposal could have potentially exempted non-profits from paying for even utility charges. Response: Cities should have the authority to collect payments from statutorily-exempt property owners to cover costs of service similar to the authority provided under the special assessment law. The League of Minnesota Cities opposes legislation that would exempt non-profits from paying for user fees and service charges that help fund services these organizations use. FF-27. Fire Protection Districts Issue: Fire protection districts have the potential to reduce duplication of equipment purchases and services, and to improve uniformity of service delivery throughout a region. One obstacle to establishing fire protection districts is the absence of statutory authority to establish fire taxing districts. The Legislature has granted authority for special taxing districts to provide services such as watershed management and emergency medical services. Despite growing funding and fire protection staffing challenges, this authority does not currently exist for providing fire protection services. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes that some regions of the state could sustain or improve fire protection services if fire protection districts were authorized. The League supports authority for local units of government to establish fire protection districts provided that 1) participation in a district is a local decision, and 2) fire taxing districts must be governed by elected officials representing the participating entities. With elected local official participation, state-imposed levy limits on fire protection districts are unnecessary. FF-28. Housing Improvement Areas and Special Service Districts Petitioned by Business Issue: In 1996, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. §§ 428A.11-.21 to use Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs) in order to finance housing improvements for condominium and townhome complexes. Several cities around the state have used this tool, and found it to be a useful mechanism for maintaining older association homes. The 2013 Legislature also granted HIA authority to a county Community Development Authority (CDA). As part of that authority, the CDA is required to gather local approval before creating an HIA. In 1996, the Legislature also gave cities the general authority to create Special Service Districts (SSDs) under Minn. Stat. §§ 428A.01-.101. Cities around the state have used this tool to provide an increased level of service to commercial or industrial areas, commonly in areas of retail concentration. SSDs are established at the request of local businesses, who ultimately pay for and benefit from the increased level of service. A SSD may be established League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 126 anywhere in a city but only business property (i.e. commercial, industrial, utility, or land zoned for commercial or industrial use) will be subject to the service charge. Some special services have included street and sidewalk cleaning, snow and ice removal, lighting, signage, parking, parking enforcement, marketing and promotion, landscaping, and security. A SSD may be established only by petition and the city adopts an ordinance to establish it. Minn. Stat. §§ 428A.09-10 establishes procedures for the business owners in the SSD to veto or end the SSD. The 2013 legislature extended the sunset for both tools for 15 years, making it set to expire on June 30, 2028. In 2017, the House considered legislation that was ultimately unsuccessful to repeal the general SSD authority for cities. There are currently over 15 cities that have established SSDs around the state. As cities work to develop and/or redevelop commercial, industrial, and residential areas, new ways of paying for and providing increased levels of service should be available to local entities. Use of Special Service Districts in mixed-use development is one tool that could be available for this purpose. Response: The Legislature should give cities permanent authority to create HIAs and SSDs. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the authority for cities to work with their business communities to establish SSDs and opposes efforts to restrict general authority of the tool. The League also supports the potential use of SSDs for mixed-use districts that include residential and commercial/industrial properties. The law should be reviewed to determine to what extent mixed-use properties can and should contribute to a Special Service District from which they will benefit. The League would support legislation that expands SSDs to include mixed-use development to the extent it balances the benefits and obligations of residential properties within the district. If the Legislature grants multi- jurisdictional entities the authority to create HIAs, creation of an HIA must require local approval. FF-29. Tax-Forfeited Properties and Local Special Assessments Issue: Special assessments are a charge, authorized by the Legislature and state law, imposed on properties for a particular improvement that benefits those selected properties. Cities follow complex, time- consuming statutory special assessment procedures to specially assess the appropriate amount of the local infrastructure improvements to those properties. If a property with validly attached special assessments goes into tax-forfeiture, the county auditor cancels all of the local special assessments due and remaining unpaid on each parcel, which is authorized in Minn. Stat. § 282.07. Therefore, the city loses the funds previously budgeted and planned for to pay for the local improvements. To underline this point, the funds have already been expended and if not collected, result in losses to the city. When tax-forfeited land returns to private ownership, and the parcel benefitted from an improvement for which the city canceled special assessments because of the forfeiture, the city may assess or reassess the parcel. But cities must go through the same cumbersome notice and hearing procedures in order to re-attach the assessments. League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 127 Response: The Legislature should remove cancellation of local special assessments from state law, allowing cities to receive the funding validly assessed and counted on to fund local infrastructure improvements. FF-30. Distribution of Proceeds from the Sale of Tax-Forfeit Property Issue: When properties go into tax forfeiture all levels of government lose tax revenue that would otherwise support the services they provide. It is always in the best interest of taxpayers to return these properties to the tax rolls as quickly as possible. Although the tax forfeiture process is controlled by the county, and counties have a legitimate need to be reimbursed for reasonable administrative costs, the city often has more at stake financially in terms of costs fronted to facilitate development (e.g., assessments for public infrastructure and unpaid development or utility fees). While the tax forfeit procedure provides a process for the repayment of special assessments, it does not require the repayment of unpaid utility charges or unpaid building and development fees. Further, due to large assessments that some cities are left with, it may not be practical to sell a tax-forfeited property subject to a special assessment, and city taxpayers may be forced to absorb the sunk costs of a project in order to sell the property. State statutes governing the apportionment of the proceeds from the sale of tax forfeit property allow counties to first recover administrative costs related to the tax forfeiture process before subsequent allocations are made for special assessments and hazardous waste cleanup associated with the property. State law is unclear whether the proceeds from a tax forfeiture transaction should be used to reimburse the county only for the expenses associated with the transacted parcel, or if the proceeds can be used to reimburse the county for administrative costs associated with other parcels that were not transacted. When the latter allocation method is employed by a county, the transaction proceeds can be disproportionately applied to county administrative costs resulting in a lower allocation of remaining proceeds to cover existing special assessments, hazardous waste cleanup costs and ultimately the final allocation of residual tax forfeit sale proceeds to cities. In addition, counties are allowed to use 30 percent of the amount remaining after the deduction for administrative expenses and the repayment of special assessments for forest development projects and then 20 percent of any remaining proceeds for county parks and recreation projects. The structure of the distribution of the proceeds frequently results in cities receiving a very small percentage of the initial forfeit sale proceeds. As a result, cities may not recoup even a portion of the unpaid taxes or special assessments owed on a property. In most cases, cities and counties work collaboratively to ensure that properties are returned to the tax rolls quickly to benefit all taxpayers. However, when consensus is not reached, the tax forfeiture statutes place cities at a disadvantage and can disproportionately burden the taxpayers of the city in which the properties are located. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities believes the tax forfeiture statutes should be reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure that the needs of city and county taxpayers are properly balanced. Specifically, the League supports changes in the distribution of League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 128 the proceeds from the sale of tax forfeit property contained in Minn. Stat. § 282.08 to elevate the priority for repayment of unpaid charges for electricity, water and sewer charges certified pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 444.075 subd. 3(e), and any unpaid fees prescribed pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.353 subd. 4(a), to require those unpaid charges and fees to be repaid immediately after unpaid special assessments. The proceeds from the sale of a tax forfeited parcel should be used to pay the assessments and administrative and development costs for the transacted parcel. Minn. Stat. § 282.09 should be amended to prevent the proceeds from the sales of a tax forfeited parcel to be used to pay excessive administrative costs or the costs for other parcels in the county until the city is fairly reimbursed for unpaid assessments and development costs of the transacted parcel. Before the final distribution of any remaining proceeds from the sale of tax forfeited land are distributed to cities, counties, and school districts, Minn. Stat. § 282.08(4)(i) and (ii) give counties the right to take up to half of those proceeds for county forest development and county park and recreation areas. The League also supports the elimination of these separate statutory apportionments while allowing counties to use their designated 40 percent share of the remaining proceeds for these uses. FF-31. State Hazard Mitigation and Response Support Issue: Cities in Minnesota are exposed to extreme weather events such as winds, flooding, fires, and drought and are facing the severe financial consequences of the clean-up, repairs, and community social and economic recovery, even though damages may be deemed “not of such severity and magnitude” as to qualify for federal assistance. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities calls on our legislators and state executive agencies charged with hazard mitigation planning to address not only a response to extreme weather events but to also put into place a proactive strategy to minimize or mitigate the financial consequences. At a minimum, this effort should offer a reasonable loan funding program that is easily accessible by cities, businesses and homeowners to financially recover and rebuild, with the ultimate goal of preserving jobs, industries, and communities. The state response should allow for the use of new technology and best management practices for any reconstruction of infrastructure to lessen the impact of future disasters and to mitigate the effects of disasters resulting from future extreme weather events. FF-32. Library Funding Issue: State law requires that local governments maintain a minimum level of funding for public library services. This is collectively known as “state-certified levels of library support,” or more commonly known as, “maintenance of effort (MOE)” and is described in Minn. Stat. § 134.34. A majority of public libraries in Minnesota belong a regional library system, which is the entity that receives library funding from the Minnesota Department of Education. Six of the 12 regional library systems are structured as a federated system where the individual libraries or library systems operate autonomously from the regional League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 129 library system but they can utilize certain services such as inter-library loan distribution, digital card cataloging, which capitalize on economies of effort from partnering with the other libraries in the regional system. The MOE for any city that taxes separately for library services is now set at 90% of the amount established in 2011 (see Minn. Stat. § 275.761). In 2011, it was calculated using a formula that included payments made in the form of the library employee salaries, payments toward operating the facility, purchasing materials from the library, and other operating costs, adjusted net tax capacity, and several other factors. The other half of the state’s public library systems are consolidated systems, where the regional library system runs the libraries through a joint powers agreement with counties and participating cities. The regional library system has a board and hires the director. A city that participates in the regional system will have an MOE (calculated as described above). The city MOE may include dollars provided directly to the regional library system or operating dollars provided to support building costs (i.e. city-provided maintenance services). In the metropolitan area, the seven county library systems and one city library system belong to the Metropolitan Library Services Agency (MELSA), the metro area regional library system. Most of the cities that operate libraries independently from their county library system belong to MELSA as affiliates of their county library system. The funding of libraries in MELSA may be from a county levy, a city levy, a city library fund from the general city levy or a combination. Most libraries not only serve city residents, but also serve people that reside outside of city limits who, in some cases, are not fully contributing to the upkeep, maintenance or operations of the library through property tax levies. While counties do contribute to municipal libraries, this support falls well short of the per capita amounts contributed by city residents. City officials support libraries and believe that a system of equitably funded libraries is needed. One approach that has been previously approved by the Legislature is providing for funding through regional tax levies designated as “library districts.” A district would have the authority to levy for public library services in lieu of their member cities and counties. Under Minn. Stat. § 134.201, the Great River Regional Library System and the East Central Regional Library System already have authority to create “library districts.” Some cities also contribute a supplemental amount of funding separate from MOE requirements, usually to pay for building maintenance costs. When the state calculates the required MOE for each local unit of government, local building costs are included in city MOE requirements and all monies cities contribute to a library building, except capital, are taken into account. The MOE requirement is a mandate on cities that does not allow for local decision making. However, it provides a stable source of funding to protect the investment in library resources and services around the state. There are some groups that are advocating for a restoration of the MOE to levels at least as high as the 2010 level. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports equitable funding for local libraries to allow for local budget decision making. Changes to the maintenance of effort by the Legislature should be as follows: a) The required annual payment should reflect the amount the city itself pays toward maintenance, upkeep, and League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 130 capital improvements to the library in that year. b) If the MOE reduction in Minn. Stat. § 275.761 is restored to a level at least as high as the 2010 level, it should be phased in over three years. c) Any relief provided to the county MOE requirement should not result in additional funding requirements to cities. The authority for library systems to create library taxing districts should be expanded statewide. The Legislature should allow municipal libraries the ability to charge non- residents for membership and\or other services without the loss of any State or Federal aids. FF-33. Park and Library Land Tax Break Issue: As the price for land increases, it is becoming more difficult for cities and other local units of government to compete with developers to save and secure land and easements that are deemed appropriate for park, library, trail, and green spaces. Response: The state should amend the tax laws to provide tax incentives for property owners who sell land and easements to local units of government when the land is to be used for park, library, trail or green space purposes. FF-34. Increasing Safe School Levy Authority Issue: Strong partnerships between schools and local law enforcement are critical to school safety. Police School Resource Officers (SROs) are valued professionals in school communities and provide support, safety and security for students, staff and the public. Further, SROs can provide regular opportunities for informal, positive interactions between students and police personnel. Under Minn. Stat. § 126C.44, the Safe Schools Levy allows school districts to levy for costs associated with student and staff safety based on student enrollment numbers. Some eligible expenses include police liaison services; drug abuse prevention programs; gang resistance education training; school security; crime prevention; and implementation of student and staff safety measures. Using Safe Schools Levy authority, local school boards may raise additional resources for school safety and security. Almost every Minnesota school district currently levies the full amount of $36 per pupil. This amount does not cover the full cost of providing this important service, and local law enforcement agencies are not being fully compensated for providing SROs. Response: The League supports increasing the maximum Safe Schools Levy from $36 per pupil up to $60 per pupil to ensure schools and communities are able to continue providing safe schools programming FF-35. Equitable Funding of Community Education Services Issue: Under Minn. Stat. § 124D.20, school districts are authorized to levy for community education programs that can include youth recreational activities. However, state statute limits the total amount of revenue that can be raised by the school district to fund community education programs and this limit has not been sufficiently increased in recent years. In many instances, cities participate in the funding of these programs and with the League of Minnesota Cities 2019 City Policies Page 131 statutory limit on the amount school districts can levy, the increased cost of these programs is increasingly falling on cities and their property taxpayers. In areas where the school district is significantly larger than the city, the burden of funding these programs is falling disproportionately on city taxpayers while the programs benefit the entire school district. Response: The League of Minnesota Cities supports a statutory increase in the community education revenue authorization for school districts. Increasing the amount of the community service revenue available to school districts would provide a steady source of revenue, which would be assessed against all properties in the school district, not just against properties in the city. FF-36. Street Reconstruction Bond Approval Issue: Under Minnesota law, financing the maintenance of streets can be a challenge for city councils. Minn. Stat. § 475.58 subd. 3b, authorizes a city council, by two-thirds vote, to approve the issuance of bonds to finance street reconstruction or bituminous overlays without voter approval. The two-thirds council approval requirement is further subject to a reverse referendum process whereby a number equal to five percent of those voting in the last municipal general election can petition for a referendum to approve the issuance of the bonds. Response: Street maintenance is one of the essential functions of cities in Minnesota. The laws governing issuance of bonds to maintain streets should be amended to allow the approval of the bonds by a simple majority of the council. The existing reverse referendum process assures that taxpayers could trigger a referendum on the issuance of bonds if they can meet the five percent petition threshold. FF-37. Special Assessment Election Requirements Issue: City councils are best situated to recognize the need to replace infrastructure and when to schedule the replacement projects. Cities are often only able to carry out these and other vital improvements by issuing bonds and assessing some amount of the cost to property owners. Issuing bonds to finance most local improvement projects requires a special election unless the city can legally collect at least 20% of the project costs through special assessments. As a legal limit, cities cannot collect special assessments from any property greater than the increase in fair market value bestowed to that property by the improvement (the “special benefit test”). On occasion, the increase in property values as a result of the improvement can fail to add up to the 20% threshold necessary to finance projects without requiring a special election. Response: In order to facilitate the financing public infrastructure projects, the threshold for requiring voter approval for issuance of improvement bonds under Minn. Stat. § 429.091 should be reduced to 15 percent. This change would provide more flexibility for cities with their construction/bonding/ assessment decisions while still providing value to the property owner. League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 TEL: (651) 281-1200 (800) 925-1122 FAX: (651) 281-1299 WEB: www.lmc.org MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager S UBJ EC T:R eques t to P rovide a C ity P hone to the Mayor Recommendation: - C onsider a request from M ayor E lliott to receive a C ity funded phone for C ity B usiness Background: Mayor Elliott has made a request to have the C ity provide a phone to him for bus iness use. Mayor Elliott will provide further explanation for this reques t at the C ounc il Meeting. T he estimated cost of providing a smart phone $1,300.00 in the first year and $360. in year two and beyond. It is assumed the phones will be replaced after three (3) years . T here would be no direc t phone c os t to provide a feature phone that only allows calling and texting. T he additional service plan cost is es timated to be $25-$50 per month. Policy Issues: 1. Does approval of this request serve a public purpos e of s uffic ient value to the C ity to justify the expenditure? 2. S hould all C ounc ilmembers rec eive the same C ity resource? MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/14/2019 TO :C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A F R O M: S UBJ EC T:P ending Items Recommendation: C ities United Members hip Livable Wages Affordable Hous ing R ec ommendations O n-S treet P arking C onditions F irs t S aturday Market dis cus s ion F uture Us e of EDA P roperties P ublic S ubs idy P olicy disc ussion with Ehlers C ons ulting - 1/28, 2/25, 3/11 Background: