HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-11-2021 Council PacketAGENDA
LITTLE CANADA CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2021
CALL TO ORDER – Workshop Meeting – 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call
1. Facility Condition Survey
Adjourn
CALL TO ORDER – Regular Meeting – 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
July 28, 2021 Regular Council Meeting
Announcements
PUBLIC COMMENT
Please limit comments to 3 minutes per person. Items brought before the Council will be referred for
consideration. Council may ask questions for clarification, but no Council action or discussion will be held
on these items.
PRESENTATION
1. League of Women Voters – Roseville Area: Study on Equal Representation on Appointed City
Boards & Commissions (Presented by Rita Miller, LWV-Roseville Area member)
CONSENT AGENDA
2. Approval of the Vouchers
3. Approve Partial Pay No. 2 to T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. for the 2021 Street Improvement
Projects
STAFF REPORTS
4. Pioneer Park Phase I Master Plan Final Presentation
5. Request for Fire Relief Benefit Increase
6. 2nd Quarter 2021 Financial Report
7. Consider Amending Chapter 2204, Exclusion Zones & Prohibition of Certain Employment-
Related Activities
ADJOURN
STAFF REPORT
TO:Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council
FROM:Heidi Heller, City Clerk
DATE:August 11, 2021
RE:Presentation by League of Women Voters – Roseville Area
The League of Women Voters–Roseville Area periodically conducts studies on various
subjects. After compiling the information into a report, members of the LWV will present
their findings to the City Councils of their member cities; Little Canada, Falcon Heights,
Roseville and Maplewood.
League of Women Voters–Roseville Area member, Rita Miller, has requested to present a
summary of their recent “Equitable Representation Study on Appointed City Boards and
Commissions” to the Little Canada City Council.
August 2, 2021
To: Little Canada City Council Members
From: League of Women Voters – Roseville Area [includes Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada,
Maplewood, Roseville]
Re: 2020-2021 Equitable Representation Study on Appointed City Boards and Commissions
Enclosed please find the report of our study on the equitable representation on city boards and
commissions. We hope this is of use to you as you continue your work to increase the diversity of
voices contributing to city governance. In November 2020, we sent out 116 surveys to current
and some former city-appointed commissioners with response rates varying from 19% to 73%
across cities of Falcon Heights, Little Canada, Maplewood and Roseville. Lauderdale currently has
no active commissions. Because numbers of commissions vary by city and numbers of
commissioners responding also varied, we are not providing city-specific feedback.
With these caveats in mind, we hope you might glean useful information from the study. Certain
themes ran across all four cities such as commissioners’ pride in their work, the respect shown for
one another, and willingness to work together. Across all four cities, commissioners also wanted
more diversity of views represented, but recognized the challenge of encouraging community
members to get involved in city governance.
We look forward to hearing from you and learning with you about ways in which we can reach a
broader and more diverse segment of our population and successfully encourage more residents
to become involved in city governance.
2
League of Women Voters Roseville Area
2020-2021 Equitable Representation Study on Appointed City Boards and Commissions
INTRODUCTION
Just prior to the League of Women Voters (LWV) Roseville Area chapter annual meeting in June
2020, the City of Minneapolis became yet another City where inequality reached a boiling
point. The death of an African American, George Floyd, while he was being arrested, became an
agonizing plea for racial justice here and now. This occurred during a devastating pandemic that
was already exposing inequities in housing, health care, education, and in public life. LWV
Roseville Area members advocated undertaking a study to look at equitable representation in our
own backyard—in the five cities represented in our chapter. It was a small step, but nevertheless,
something that we could do to bring awareness to the current state of diversity and equity on City
appointed Boards and Commissions.
Serving on a commission can be a step toward becoming more involved in politics, and thus is an
important gateway to more equal representation in local, state, and national governance. With
demand for City services such as low-cost housing and green space continuing to grow, residents
and cities alike welcome sound management and a range of voices contributing to public
discussion of city needs and priorities.
The study team chose to define diversity broadly, to include race/ethnicity, age, socio-economic
status, disabilities, and sexual orientation. The spirit of this report is to focus on what is working
well, emphasizing equity strengths that can be shared across the cities. This aligns with positions
of LWV and City leaders to foster opportunity for efficient, effective City boards and commissions
including resident participation.
STUDY GOAL
The purpose of this study was to identify the current status and highlight respondents’
recommendations for best practices in equitable representation for Boards and Commissions
appointed by the City Councils of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maplewood, and
Roseville.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The study team collected the following information which informs the current situation with
appointed Boards and Commissions in the five cities:
• Email requests to City clerks or managers for current and former commission member e-
mail contact information, details such as purpose of the various commissions, term lengths,
commissioner qualifications, and recruitment and onboarding. Information from City
websites was also used.
• Online anonymous survey to 116 current commissioners in Falcon Heights, Little Canada,
Maplewood and Roseville (Lauderdale currently has no commissions) with a response rate
ranging from 19-73 percent (median=61 percent). Note that since Roseville has the most
3
commissions, they had the most survey responses. Results have not been summarized by
City to ensure confidentiality.
• Phone calls with survey respondents who requested a follow-up conversation.
Suggestions were then drawn from the information collected. We acknowledge that the survey
was subjective in nature, representing respondents’ views and raises topics for the Cities’
consideration. Subjective data relies on participant awareness; that is, we don’t know what we
don’t know. Personal bias is inevitable and enters into responses. On-going data collection and
reflection help create more personal awareness and recognition of one’s own biases and
perspectives.
City demographic snapshot
The Cities are generally similar, except for population and differences such as Roseville having a
little less racial diversity, Maplewood having more people under age 18, and Lauderdale having the
highest percentage of people below poverty levels.
Falcon
Heights
Lauderdale Little
Canada
Maplewood Roseville
Age
Median/middle 32.9 33.2 43.8 38.1 40
percent under 18 18% 13% 18% 22% 19%
percent 18-64 66 70 65 62 60
percent 65+ 15 17 17 16 21
Gender
Male 47% 48% 49% 49% 47%
Female 53% 52% 51% 51% 53%
Ethnicity
White 71% 70.72% 66% 64% 76%
Black 8 11 10 9 8
Native 0 1 0 0.3 0.5
Asian 15 12 15 15 8
Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0
Hispanic 2 3 5 9 4
other 1 1 0 3 0
two + 3 2 3 3 4
Income
median $72,660 $50,909 $51,500 $66,758 $68,300
Below poverty 12% 16% 8.7% 9.8% 9.7%
100-149 percent
poverty
5.3 5.9 10 8.7 5.7
150-184 percent
poverty
6 7.2 7.7 5.5 4.4
Population 5,446 2,442 10,580 41,738 36,644
Population data adapted from 2010 US Census and 2019 American Community Survey
4
City commissions snapshot
As the chart of the commissions shows, the types of commissions vary in each city. Lauderdale
currently has no commissions, as previously mentioned.
Falcon
Heights
Little
Canada
Maplewood Roseville
Commission
Planning X X X X
Parks & Recreation X X X X
Environment (& Natural Resources) X X
Public Works/Environment &
Transportation
X
Community Engagement X
Human Rights, Inclusion & Engagement X
Community Design Review Board X
Heritage Preservation X
Housing/Economic Development X
Ethics X
Finance X
Police/Civil Service X
Variance (overlaps with Planning) X
Similarities in commissions
Few commissions reported having required qualifications other than being a resident. There are
some exceptions, such as the Finance Commission requiring that three members have professional
financial experience. The average number of commissioners per commission is 6.5 and the range is
from 3 to 11. All commissioners are appointed by City Councils and/or Mayors. The only
commissions that the Cities have in common are Planning and Parks & Recreation. There is also
similarity between Maplewood’s Environment & Natural Resources and Roseville’s Public
Works/Environment & Transportation, and Roseville’s Human Rights, Inclusion & Engagement and
Falcon Height’s Community Engagement. Meetings are held in the evening in all cities, and during
the COVID-19 pandemic, were held online via Zoom.
How long have your served on your specific board or commission?
Responses Percent
I am currently serving my first term. 21 36
I am serving my second term. 22 37
I am serving now and have also served in the past. 11 19
Other 5 8
5
Total 59 100
Most respondents were serving on their first or second terms. Some were serving now and had
served in the past.
Differences in commissions
Of note to this study is that in 2017 the City of Roseville combined its Human Rights and
Community Engagement Commissions to create a Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement
Commission. The purpose is to evaluate the City’s outreach and inclusion efforts and advise on
strategies to improve them. Roseville also has two voting youth (high school) commissioners on
two commissions and Falcon Heights has a youth commission which encourages teens to serve on
several of their commissions. Maplewood previously had a Human Rights Commission and may
possibly create a similar new Commission. Except for Maplewood, the cities each have term limits
for commissioners. These differences are noted as they impact obtaining more diversity in
commissioners.
STUDY FINDINGS
Pride in accomplishments
We asked commissioners what they were most proud of in their work:
• Most common answer of 42 responses was full participation by members, equal
opportunity to speak, without intimidation from other board members and getting input
from the public to make positive changes. “Good collaboration, city seeks and takes
input/feedback.”
• Second most common answer was working from a master plan for their commission
• Other common responses, some specific to type of commission included: improving park
facilities; develop a primer for orientation of new commission members and ongoing
resource for all commission members about important topics and aspects of work on the
commission; engagement toolkit; hiring of diversity and inclusion consultant by the City as
a result of our recommendation; solar power and water rates; work on utility rates and
organic composting
What works well with your Commission?
The following comments were the most frequently mentioned of 42 responses:
• Having a comprehensive plan was mentioned by the most people with comments such as,
“We developed a master plan and we reference it when making recommendations” being
typical (comments about the comprehensive plan are likely from Planning Commission
members, who have a role to play in the cities’ development of the statutorily-mandated
Comprehensive Plan)
6
• Having positive relationships was mentioned next most frequently with comments such as,
“Being open to all opinions and showing a willingness to listen” and “Respect for each
other’s opinions.”
• The next most common response was the importance of having an engaged staff or a City
Council member who worked with the commission, such as, “We are helping to promote
more active engagement in building a vibrant City atmosphere.” Similar comments include
“city staff is well informed on issues,” and “competent staff liaison.”
• Actively seeking feedback was mentioned by a number of respondents, “Input from the
community,” and “improved outreach and inclusion for underrepresented communities.”
• Several people also cited making positive change/adaptations toward progressive
environmental policies as an important accomplishment.
• Several people mentioned how COVID-19 has affected their commission. Most have
adjusted to online meetings with somewhat mixed results, though more made positive
rather than negative comments about online meetings. “We are starting to think "outside
of the box" due to the pandemic restrictions.” “The online dynamic is working well.”
What could improve your Commission?
• The most common response of 39 who answered this question was needing more feedback
from the public such as, “More local interest and involvement, including with students.
Have more commission recommendations approved or supported by City Council. Consider
ways to reach out to various stakeholders in community, (for example) solicit input on
goals or identify areas of concern or interest.”
• The next most common response involved clarification of their role, including clear
guidance and more defined role for commissioners, wanting a more clearly defined
mission, regular progress updates, better access to central data, better onboarding or
training for new commissioners, better cohesiveness between City Council and the
commission and better communication.
• Several people mentioned problems presented by COVID-19 and they felt they were being
more reactive than previously. “Even before COVID, the number of meetings per year was
too few.” “Looking forward to in-person meetings. Hard to do all our work through Zoom.”
Existing orientation and training
• Only half of respondents reported receiving an orientation. Of those, 92 percent said it was
useful:
o nearly all want training in policies and procedures and the City’s strategic plan
o next highest request was history of past practices
o less than half said training in building consensus and communication skills was
necessary, though we respectfully indicate that this may increase in importance as
diversity of experiences increases
• On the need for orientation, we asked commissioners to rate the importance of an
orientation on a scale from 1 to 100. Respondents’ ratings averaged 70 out of 100 on the
importance, with 66 percent scoring it over 50. “(Need) improved onboarding for new
commissioners, clear guidance from City Council.” “(Need) roles and responsibilities of a
7
commission, especially as it relates to city government/budget process, to city staff, to
other commissions, to City Council.” “Need new commissioner training….”.
• Maplewood and Roseville have a handbook which is provided/reviewed with new
commissioners
Barriers to participating
• Small numbers of respondents said hearing or vision issues (2), day or time of meeting
conflict (3), childcare needs (3) or technology issues (2). “Conflict with work engagement.”
• One each cited barriers such as mobility/access, personal work/travel schedule, meetings
get rescheduled and conflict with calendar, no in person meetings because of COVID-19.
“Frequent out-of-area travel.”
This information may not reflect potential commissioner barriers, as there is no method for
obtaining it from persons who, by definition, have not applied or been appointed.
Diversity of respondents
We do not have demographics for all members of the commissions. However, to the extent that
we obtained a representative sample, the responses suggest limited diversity among those serving
on these commissions.
• Respondents were largely male (62 percent)
• Income levels were high, with 42.6 percent reporting incomes of higher than $120,000.
Only 17 percent reported incomes of under $80,000, with 3.8 percent below $20,000.
Eight people did not respond to the income question.
• 83 percent of respondents were White, Asian/Pacific Islander constituted 8 percent
of respondents. One respondent reported that they were Black and 1 indicated multi-
racial.
Why commissioners serve and recruitment sources
When asked the reasons they chose to serve, 82 percent wanted to serve their City and make a
difference, 36 percent “had needed expertise”, 25 percent “make needed change” (25 percent),
“fix a problem” (12 percent), and “other” (4 percent).
How did you find out about this commission?
Responses Percent
City newsletter 24 40
City website 14 24
Current commissioner, City official 9 15
Other (inquired with City, etc.) 8 14
Social media 4 7
Total 59 100
8
Heard about openings on commission:
• 70 percent learned of opening from City newsletter, website, or social media
• 15 percent were solicited by someone already involved in government and a similar
number inquired with the City or received an email from an organization. “The
membership of commissions is appointed from the pool of those who are
interested in working on city issues and then apply for membership on a
commission. This is where an effort must be made to encourage more interest in
working on a commission. There could be a way to reach folks who do not use any
of these resources by advertising directly to certain groups.”
Comprehensive Plans
How does your board or commission’s work fit into your City’s comprehensive plan?
Responses Percent
We provide advice and opinions. 48 43
We respond to specific requests for information and advice. 32 29
We provide essential information that is important for some
decision making.
27 24
Other 4 4
Total *111 100
Note: * Respondents could check more than one category.
• We asked commissioners to rate their familiarity with their City’s comprehensive plan on a
scale from 1 to 100. Although a few indicated lack of knowledge, the mean score was 67
and 66 percent scored between 50 and 94, indicating that most were at least somewhat
familiar with the plan.
• When asked how their work fit into their City’s comprehensive plan, responses
included providing advice, responding to specific information requests, and providing
valuable information to inform work with the comprehensive plan. “Alignment with the
comprehensive plan.”
Impacts on effectiveness of commissioners
• While the majority think everyone has an equal voice, several people disagreed
• When the response was, “Sometimes Equal Voice”, comments as to when that happen
included:
o “Format can break down with 1 or 2 members dialoguing unless other member is
very forceful that they have something to add. Meeting importance and formality
breaks down at times during the meeting. This has negative impact on board
function to community and devalues the work being done.”
o “All are heard but some don’t attend so they can’t be heard”
o “It takes some time for new commissioners to feel that they have an equal voice”
• There was a strong endorsement for their recommendations being adopted by City
Councils. Sixty-six percent scored their response above 50 percent (on scale of 100).
9
“Commission views and suggestions are well received by City Council.” Another view
differed: “The City Council could listen more to our advice…”.
Missing voices
When we asked whose voices needed more representation, 70 percent responded that some
groups were missing a voice. (We assume that those who did not answer felt no voices were
missing.) Among those who did respond, the most endorsed “missing voices” category was
different races and ethnicities. When asked to rate from 1 to 100 how they were doing on
obtaining input from people of different races and incomes, the mean was about 50. “Input from
all community stakeholders, not just from residents that are directly affected by certain situations
or issues.”
Identify stakeholders whose voices you think are missing when your specific board or
commission does its work.
Responses Percent
No voices missing 19 30
Persons from different races/ethnicities 9 15
Homeless 7 11
Low income 7 11
Renters 5 8
Homeowners 4 7
Other 4 7
Persons with different abilities 3 5
Senior citizens 1 2
Persons with different sexual orientation 1 2
Youth 1 2
Total 61 100
Commissioner comments about equity
What could be done to make this board or commission and its work/recommendations more
inclusive of needs of diverse stakeholders in the city?
Responses Percent
Recruit and appoint more members from diverse backgrounds 26 43
Routinely survey a representative sample of the community 11 18
Personally consult with more diverse constituents 8 13
Other 5 8
Nothing, we are quite inclusive 4 6
No response 7 11
Total 61 100
10
• “Commissioners are selected by City Council, which itself does not represent the diversity
of the community.”
• “How we can be more intentional in incorporating equity principles and practices in our
work; whether as a commission and even as a City, what internal work do we need to do
ourselves to assess where we are at, be on the same page about equity definitions, goals
and vision, while also creating systemic changes that are more equitable for the
community.”
• “The membership of commissions is appointed from the pool of those who are interested
in working on City issues and then apply for membership on a commission. This is where
an effort must be made to encourage more interest in working on a commission. Some
Cities advertise widely for commission openings on a variety of City platforms (City
newsletter, City website, Nextdoor, Facebook, etc.). There could be a way to reach folks
who do not use any of these resources by advertising directly to certain groups.”
• “We need more ethnic diversity representation. It is difficult to get other cultures
involved.”
• “Too many people are appointed to a board or commission for the sake of diversity, even
though they have no expertise that is relevant to the board or commission.” This is a
dissenting perspective and not supported by survey responses.
• Conduct a survey of representative diverse communities for their input
SUGGESTIONS FROM CURRENT COMMISSIONERS
We heard that numerous aspects of commissions are working well and commissioners believe
they are serving an important role. As with any group, there is room for continuous improvement.
The following areas and resources are suggested for City Council discussion and possible action.
• Appoint a City staff liaison member to all commissions.
• Improve equitable representation by broadening recruitment to target and reach more
diverse groups. Ideally, reach out to relevant groups in advance of openings to build
relationships and inform community members about the commissions.
• Develop an orientation / handbook and ensure training is conducted for all commissioners
to provide a contextual understanding of the commission and City governance.
• As soon as safely possible, consider a balance of online meetings using Zoom or similar
tool and in-person meetings. While Zoom is convenient and can remove transportation
and possibly childcare barriers, it may be less personal, making it more difficult to speak up
and harder to get to know others.
OTHER BEST PRACTICE RESOURCES
• League of Minnesota Cities – Collaboration of commissioners with other City
commissioners in similar situations often offers the best path to effectiveness and
11
efficiency. While this group has no resources specific to boards and commissions, their
Manager of Policy Analysis suggests, “There are many cities in MN, especially in the metro
area, that are working to advance race equity in their communities. They are making
changes to their HR practices as well as their commissions. I would suggest that you reach
out to cities you have connections with.”
• Institute for Local Government – See their publication, Beyond the Usuals Ideas to
Encourage Broader Public Engagement in Community Decision Making
• GROUNDWORK USA – See their publication, Best Practices for Meaningful Community
Engagement
• University of Minnesota Extension Services – Leadership and Civic Engagement Extension.
This program provides teams to help cities become more welcoming communities.
EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION STUDY COMMITTEE
Co-chairs: Patricia Hoffman, Barb Luck
Members: Megan Dahlberg, Rita Mills, Karen Schaffer
Contributor: Julie Strahan
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mark D. Kasma, P.E., City Engineer
DATE: August 11, 2021
RE: 2021 Street Improvements
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Motion to approve Partial Pay Estimate No. 2 to T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. in the amount of
$161,835.25.
BACKGROUND:
The total amount earned by the Contractor to date is $420,755.32. The amount paid previously is
237,882.30. Withholding a 5% retainage, the amount due is $161,835.25.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Street and utility improvements will be funded through the City’s Infrastructure Capital
Improvement Fund and special assessments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve payment in the amount of $161,835.25.
Date:
Approved for Payment:
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc.Signature Date
2370 East Hwy 36
North St. Paul, MN 55109
Name and Title
Checked and Approved as to
Quantities and Amount:Signature Date
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
2035 County Road D East
Maplewood, MN 55109 Name and Title
Approved for Payment:
City of Little Canada
Name Date
7/30/2021
CONTRACTOR'S PAY REQUEST Pay Request No. 2
2021 Street Improvements
City of Little Canada, MN For Period Ending:7/29/2021
Revised Contract Amount $593,729.91
Completed Work to Date $420,755.32
BMI Project No. 0N1.122720
Original Contract Amount $593,729.91
Approved Change Orders $0.00
Deduction $0.00
Stored Materials on Hand $0.00
Sub-Total $420,755.32
Retained Percentage 5%($21,037.77)
Liquidated Damages $0.00
Total $399,717.55
Total Amount Paid on Previous Estimates $237,882.30
between the Owner and the undersigned Contractor, and as amended by any
authorized changes, and that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of the
contract amount for the period covered by this Estimate.
Title
Amount Due Contractor This Pay Request $161,835.25
Certificate for Partial Payment
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all items quantities and prices
of work and material shown on this Estimate are correct and that all work has been
performed in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract for this project
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A42E05B-14D3-41D4-9A93-B085E9254C6F
Jonathan Hager
July 31, 2021
VP
Eric Seaburg
August 1, 2021
PM
Public Works Director August 2, 2021Bill Dircks
Partial Pay Estimate No.: 22021 STREET IMPROVEMENTSCITY OF LITTLE CANADA, MNBMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.122720WORK COMPLETED THROUGH JULY 29, 2021ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATEDNO.ITEMPRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNTBASE BIDPART 1 - STREETS:1 MOBILIZATION$24,000.00 1.00 LS $24,000.00 0.40 LS $9,600.00 0.71 LS $17,040.002 CLEARING$450.00 3.00 TREE $1,350.00 3.00 TREE $1,350.00 3.00 TREE $1,350.003 GRUBBING$300.00 3.00 TREE $900.00 3.00 TREE $900.00 3.00 TREE $900.004 REMOVE CONCRETE STEPS$4.00 15.00 EACH $60.00 12.00 EACH $48.00 12.00 EACH $48.005 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER $4.00 1587.00 LF $6,348.00 1441.00 LF $5,764.00 1,463.00 LF$5,852.006 SAW CUT BITUMINOUS (FULL DEPTH)$2.00 459.00 LF $918.00 0.00 LF $0.00 333.00 LF $666.007 SAW CUT CONCRETE (FULL DEPTH)$3.70 178.00 LF $658.60 0.00 LF $0.00 0.00 LF $0.008 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT$2.50 246.00 SY $615.00 215.00 SY $537.50 252.00 SY $630.009 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT$3.50 268.00 SY $938.00 357.00 SY $1,249.50 379.00 SY $1,326.5010 REMOVE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY$6.00 47.00 SY $282.00 22.00 SY $132.00 22.00 SY $132.0011 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 5$2.75 4739.00 SY $13,032.25 4739.00 SY $13,032.25 4,739.00SY $13,032.2512 COMMON EXCAVATION$23.30 3560.00 CY $82,948.00 2892.00 CY $67,383.60 3,226.00 CY $75,165.8013 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION$12.00 356.00 CY $4,272.00 0.00 CY $0.00 0.00 CY $0.0014 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW$11.00 3270.00 TON $35,970.00 2843.00 TON $31,273.00 2,843.00 TON $31,273.0015 COMMON EMBANKMENT$10.00 69.00 CY $690.00 0.00 CY $0.00 0.00 CY $0.0016 PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY$35.00 16.00 SY $560.00 0.00 SY $0.00 8.00 SY $280.0017 STABILIZING AGGREGATE$1.00 356.00 CY $356.00 0.00 CY $0.00 0.00 CY $0.0018 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5$15.00 2181.00 TON $32,715.00 1185.00 TON $17,775.00 1,388.00 TON $20,820.0019 RECLAIM BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT$2.00 4507.00 SY $9,014.00 4507.00 SY $9,014.00 4,507.00 SY$9,014.0020 WATER$0.01 51.00 MGAL $0.51 7.00 MGAL $0.07 7.00 MGAL $0.0721 JOINT ADHESIVE (MASTIC)$0.50 2600.00 LF $1,300.00 0.00 LF $0.00 0.00 LF $0.0022 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT$0.01 275.00 GAL $2.75 0.00 GAL $0.00 0.00 GAL $0.0023 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)$84.00 427.00 TON $35,868.00 0.00 TON $0.00 0.00 TON $0.0024 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,E), DRIVEWAY$135.00 36.00 TON $4,860.00 0.00 TON $0.00 43.00 TON $5,805.0025 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)$78.00 569.00 TON $44,382.00 0.00 TON $0.00 492.00 TON $38,376.0026 CONCRETE STEPS$950.00 3.00 CY $2,850.00 0.00 CY $0.00 3.00 CY $2,850.0027 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618 $14.70 2600.00 LF $38,220.00 0.00 LF $0.00 2,500.00 LF $36,750.0028 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT$67.00 423.00 SY $28,341.00 0.00 SY $0.00 535.00 SY $35,845.0029 8" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER$100.00 45.00 SY $4,500.00 0.00 SY $0.00 40.00 SY $4,000.0030 TRAFFIC CONTROL$26,000.00 1.00 LS $26,000.00 0.40 LS $10,400.00 0.71 LS $18,460.0031 EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR$2,500.00 1.00 LS $2,500.00 0.00 LS $0.00 0.50 LS $1,250.0032 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT$1,500.00 1.00 LS $1,500.00 1.00 LS $1,500.00 1.00 LS $1,500.0033 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION$125.00 9.00 EACH $1,125.00 9.00 EACH $1,125.00 9.00 EACH $1,125.0034 SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE SLICED$3.00 420.00 LF $1,260.00 0.00 LF $0.00 0.00 LF $0.0035 FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)$36.00 791.00 CY $28,476.00 0.00 CY $0.00 0.00 CY $0.0036 SODDING TYPE LAWN$6.00 4738.00 SY $28,428.00 0.00 SY $0.00 0.00 SY $0.00PART 1 - STREETS TOTAL:$465,240.11 $171,083.92 $323,490.62PART 2 - SANITARY SEWER:37 REMOVE FRAME AND RING CASTING (SANITARY)$150.00 5.00 EACH $750.00 4.00 EACH $600.00 4.00 EACH $600.0038 RECONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE$990.00 5.00 LF $4,950.00 5.00 LF $4,950.00 5.00 LF $4,950.0039 NEW RINGS AND CASTING (SANITARY)$850.00 5.00 EACH $4,250.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 0.00 EACH $0.0040 CHIMNEY SEAL (FLEX-SEAL)$600.00 5.00 EACH $3,000.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 0.00 EACH $0.00PART 2 - SANITARY SEWER TOTAL:$12,950.00 $5,550.00 $5,550.00ESTIMATEDAS BID PREVIOUS ESTIMATE COMPLETED TO DATEDocuSign Envelope ID: 0A42E05B-14D3-41D4-9A93-B085E9254C6F
Partial Pay Estimate No.: 22021 STREET IMPROVEMENTSCITY OF LITTLE CANADA, MNBMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.122720WORK COMPLETED THROUGH JULY 29, 2021ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATEDNO.ITEMPRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNTESTIMATEDAS BID PREVIOUS ESTIMATE COMPLETED TO DATEPART 3 - WATERMAIN:41 REMOVE AND REPLACE GATE VALVE BOLTS$565.00 7.00 EACH $3,955.00 5.00 EACH $2,825.00 5.00 EACH $2,825.0042 REMOVE AND REPLACE HYDRANT BOLTS$550.00 4.00 EACH $2,200.00 4.00 EACH $2,200.00 4.00 EACH $2,200.0043 REMOVE AND REPLACE FITTING BOLTS$575.00 10.00 EACH $5,750.00 10.00 EACH $5,750.00 10.00 EACH $5,750.0044 ADJUST CURB BOX IN TURF$200.00 17.00 EACH $3,400.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 0.00 EACH $0.0045 ADJUST CURB BOX CASTING IN CONCRETE STEPS$200.00 1.00 EACH $200.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 1.00 EACH $200.0046 FORD TYPE A1 CURB STOP COVER$125.00 1.00 EACH $125.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 0.00 EACH $0.0047 REMOVE AND REPLACE GATE VALVE BOX$1,200.00 7.00 EACH $8,400.00 5.00 EACH $6,000.00 5.00 EACH$6,000.00PART 3 - WATERMAIN TOTAL:$24,030.00 $16,775.00 $16,975.00PART 4 - STORM SEWER:48 REMOVE CASTING & RINGS (STORM)$150.00 5.00 EACH $750.00 4.00 EACH $600.00 5.00 EACH $750.0049 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE$650.00 2.00 EACH $1,300.00 3.00 EACH $1,950.00 3.00 EACH $1,950.0050 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM)$10.50 65.00 LF $682.50 65.00 LF $682.50 65.00 LF $682.5051 REMOVE DRIVEWAY CULVERTS$630.00 3.00 EACH $1,890.00 3.00 EACH $1,890.00 3.00 EACH $1,890.0052 4" PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN TILE$8.00 571.00 LF $4,568.00 571.00 LF $4,568.00 571.00 LF $4,568.0053 INSPECTION TEE$300.00 2.00 EACH $600.00 2.00 EACH $600.00 2.00 EACH $600.0054 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEAN OUT$300.00 1.00 EACH $300.00 1.00 EACH $300.00 1.00 EACH $300.0055 CONNECT DRAIN TILE TO STRUCTURE$750.00 4.00 EACH $3,000.00 4.00 EACH $3,000.00 4.00 EACH $3,000.0056 15" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V$60.00 60.00 LF $3,600.00 53.00 LF $3,180.00 53.00 LF $3,180.0057 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER$630.00 1.00 EACH $630.00 1.00 EACH $630.00 1.00 EACH $630.0058 2'X3' CB, INCL CSTG AND AJD RINGS (DETAIL STO-5)$2,400.00 1.00 EACH $2,400.00 1.00 EACH $2,400.00 1.00 EACH$2,400.0059 4' DIA STORM SEWER CBMH, INCL CSTG AND AJD RINGS (DETAIL STO-3)$3,600.00 1.00 EACH $3,600.00 1.00 EACH $3,600.00 1.00 EACH$3,600.0060 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 27" ROUND (DETAIL STO-10)$1,450.00 1.00 EACH $1,450.00 1.00 EACH $1,450.00 1.00 EACH$1,450.0061 INSTALL 12" HIGH (2'X3') RISER SECTION$750.00 3.00 EACH $2,250.00 2.00 EACH $1,500.00 2.00 EACH $1,500.0062 INSTALL 12" HIGH (4' DIA) PRECAST BARREL SECTION$1,125.00 1.00 EACH $1,125.00 3.00 EACH $3,375.00 3.00 EACH$3,375.0063 NEW RINGS AND CASTING (STORM)$675.00 5.00 EACH $3,375.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 5.00 EACH $3,375.00PART 4 - STORM SEWER TOTAL:$31,520.50 $29,725.50 $33,250.50PART 5: CATCH BASIN REPLACEMENTS64 MOBILIZATION$2,500.00 1.00 LS $2,500.00 0.43 LS $1,075.00 0.69 LS $1,725.0065 SALVAGE MAILBOX$200.00 1.00 EACH $200.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 0.00 EACH $0.0066 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE$630.00 5.00 EACH $3,150.00 4.00 EACH $2,520.00 5.00 EACH $3,150.0067 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM)$11.00 111.00 LF $1,221.00 51.00 LF $561.00 55.00 LF $605.0068 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER $8.00 124.00 LF $992.00 74.00 LF $592.00 109.00 LF $872.0069 SAW CUT BITUMINOUS (FULL DEPTH)$5.00 223.00 LF $1,115.00 0.00 LF $0.00 165.00 LF $825.0070 SAW CUT CONCRETE (FULL DEPTH)$5.00 8.00 LF $40.00 0.00 LF $0.00 0.00 LF $0.0071 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT$10.00 168.00 SY $1,680.00 82.00 SY $820.00 107.00 SY $1,070.0072 REMOVE LANDSCAPING ROCK$10.00 14.00 SY $140.00 0.00 SY $0.00 0.00 SY $0.0073 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW$20.00 93.00 TON $1,860.00 0.00 TON $0.00 0.00 TON $0.0074 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5$38.00 65.00 TON $2,470.00 33.00 TON $1,254.00 33.00 TON $1,254.0075 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT$0.01 10.00 GAL $0.10 0.00 GAL $0.00 0.00 GAL $0.0076 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)$125.00 16.00 TON $2,000.00 0.00 TON $0.00 0.00 TON $0.0077 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,E), DRIVEWAY$125.00 2.00 TON $250.00 0.00 TON $0.00 0.00 TON $0.0078 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C)$125.00 22.00 TON $2,750.00 0.00 TON $0.00 20.00 TON $2,500.0079 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V$55.00 45.00 LF $2,475.00 24.00 LF $1,320.00 24.00 LF $1,320.0080 15" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V$60.00 8.00 LF $480.00 12.00 LF $720.00 12.00 LF $720.00DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A42E05B-14D3-41D4-9A93-B085E9254C6F
Partial Pay Estimate No.: 22021 STREET IMPROVEMENTSCITY OF LITTLE CANADA, MNBMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.122720WORK COMPLETED THROUGH JULY 29, 2021ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATEDNO.ITEMPRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNTESTIMATEDAS BID PREVIOUS ESTIMATE COMPLETED TO DATE81 12" CMP PIPE SEWER$52.00 24.00 LF $1,248.00 8.00 LF $416.00 8.00 LF $416.0082 15" CMP PIPE SEWER$55.00 8.00 LF $440.00 6.00 LF $330.00 6.00 LF $330.0083 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER$630.00 5.00 EACH $3,150.00 4.00 EACH $2,520.00 5.00 EACH $3,150.0084 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE$630.00 2.00 EACH $1,260.00 2.00 EACH $1,260.00 2.00 EACH $1,260.0085 RECONSTRUCT MANHOLE (SS-6)$1,300.00 1.00 EACH $1,300.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 1.00 EACH $1,300.0086 2'X3' CB, INCL CSTG AND AJD RINGS (DETAIL STO-5)$2,300.00 4.00 EACH $9,200.00 4.00 EACH $9,200.00 4.00 EACH$9,200.0087 4' DIA STORM SEWER CBMH, INCL CSTG AND AJD RINGS (DETAIL STO-3)$3,500.00 2.00 EACH $7,000.00 1.00 EACH $3,500.00 2.00 EACH$7,000.0088 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618 $45.30 124.00 LF $5,617.20 0.00 LF $0.00 74.00 LF $3,352.2089 INSTALL SALVAGED MAILBOX$150.00 1.00 EACH $150.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 0.00 EACH $0.0090 TRAFFIC CONTROL$1,000.00 1.00 LS $1,000.00 0.43 LS $430.00 0.69 LS $690.0091 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION$125.00 6.00 EACH $750.00 6.00 EACH $750.00 6.00 EACH $750.0092 FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)$50.00 22.00 CY $1,100.00 0.00 CY $0.00 0.00 CY $0.0093 SODDING TYPE LAWN$16.00 161.00 SY $2,576.00 0.00 SY $0.00 0.00 SY $0.0094 LANDSCAPE ROCK W/ WEED CONTROL$15.00 125.00 SF $1,875.00 0.00 SF $0.00 0.00 SF $0.00PART 5 - CATCH BASIN REPLACEMENTS:$59,989.30 $27,268.00 $41,489.20TOTAL BASE BID:$593,729.91 $250,402.42 $420,755.32DocuSign Envelope ID: 0A42E05B-14D3-41D4-9A93-B085E9254C6F
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 0A42E05B14D341D49A93B085E9254C6F Status: Completed
Subject: DocuSign: 2021 Street Improvements - Pay Request No. 2
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 4 Signatures: 3 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Courtney Maul
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
1960 Premier Drive
MANKATO, MN 56001
courtney.maul@bolton-menk.com
IP Address: 204.131.244.194
Record Tracking
Status: Original
7/30/2021 4:31:57 PM
Holder: Courtney Maul
courtney.maul@bolton-menk.com
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Jonathan Hager
jhager@taschifsky.com
VP
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc.
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 24.230.43.115
Sent: 7/30/2021 4:37:43 PM
Viewed: 7/30/2021 4:44:50 PM
Signed: 7/31/2021 8:18:31 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 7/30/2021 4:44:50 PM
ID: f30746e1-2237-4c73-937c-37f18ff4f5ec
Eric Seaburg
eric.seaburg@bolton-menk.com
PM
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 204.131.244.194
Sent: 7/31/2021 8:18:32 AM
Viewed: 8/1/2021 5:49:10 PM
Signed: 8/1/2021 5:49:31 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 8/1/2021 5:49:10 PM
ID: 38e7e91e-6cd5-4a74-a335-9746a1f95238
Bill Dircks
bill.dircks@littlecanadamn.org
Public Works Director
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 199.249.109.13
Sent: 8/1/2021 5:49:31 PM
Viewed: 8/2/2021 9:39:23 AM
Signed: 8/2/2021 9:39:35 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 8/2/2021 9:39:23 AM
ID: 2c19bd30-ae4b-4c13-8744-c1958efb8e69
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/30/2021 4:37:43 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 8/2/2021 9:39:23 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 8/2/2021 9:39:35 AM
Completed Security Checked 8/2/2021 9:39:35 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, Bolton & Menk (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system.
Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this
information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature
Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to
use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign
system.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send
to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you
elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time
(usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to
send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a
$0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the
procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to
receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents
from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 12/31/2019 11:55:21 AM
Parties agreed to: Jonathan Hager, Eric Seaburg, Bill Dircks
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you
inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
How to contact Bolton & Menk:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: docusign@bolton-menk.com
To advise Bolton & Menk of your new email address
To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at docusign@bolton-menk.com and
in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email
address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.
If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your
account preferences.
To request paper copies from Bolton & Menk
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to docusign@bolton-menk.com and in the
body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and
telephone number. If any fees are incurred you will be billed for them at that time.
To withdraw your consent with Bolton & Menk
To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page,
select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an email to docusign@bolton-menk.com and in the body of such request you must
state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other
information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for
online documents will be that transactions will take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The
current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guide-
signing-system-requirements.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have
read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for
your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address
where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further,
if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described
herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before
clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.
By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm
that:
You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and
You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send
this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future
reference and access; and
Until or unless you notify Bolton & Menk as described above, you consent to receive
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to you by Bolton & Menk during the course of your relationship with Bolton &
Menk.
STAFF REPORT
TO:Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council
FROM:Bryce Shearen, CPRP, Parks & Recreation/Community Services Manager
DATE:August 5, 2021
RE:Phase I Pioneer Park Master Plan Update Presentation
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
BACKGROUND
As the Phase I Master Plan for Pioneer Park nears completion, a final engagement effort was
identified in the Request For Proposal (RFP) for feedback and updating the community on
potential enhancements to Pioneer Park. Bolton & Menk provided the City with four boards that
were at a City booth on Saturday, July 31. Park & Recreation Commissioners volunteered to
‘staff’ the booth and get feedback and share updates to festival-goers.
At its Thursday, August 5, Park and Recreation Commission meeting, Commissioners shared
what they heard from the Canadian Days engagement effort. Overall, the comments were
positive and in support of improvements to Pioneer Park.
Josh Shields from Bolton & Menk will be giving an updated presentation on the master plan and
engagement feedback and be looking for any final comments from the City Council as the plan
nears the final phase to completion.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council
FROM: Chris Heineman, City Administrator
Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
DATE: August 11, 2021
RE: Fire Relief Benefit Increase
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
Consideration of a request from the Little Canada Fire Department to increase to the benefit level for
the Little Canada Fire Relief Association by $485 pursuant to our contractual provisions.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a request from Fire Chief Don Smiley on behalf of the Little Canada Fire Department
(LCFD) Board of Directors requesting an increase of $485 to the benefit amount for the Little Canada
Fire Relief Association (LCFRA). If approved, this would increase the LCFRA benefit level from
$4,195 to $4,680 per year of service.
Attachment A of the City contract with the LCDF states that benefit level increases can only be
requested once per year, and the funding level ratio must be at or above 110% on December 31 of the
previous year. According to the Little Canada Fire Relief Association annual audit, the funded ratio of
the investment account on December 31, 2020 was 119.50 %. The following table demonstrates this
basic formula.
Benefit per year of Service $4,195
Ending Assets $2,143,214 (as of 12/31/2020)
Pension Liability $1,793,644
(Unfunded)/Overfunded $349,570
Percent Funded 119.50%
All benefit increases must be approved by the City Council. According to the contract, if the percent
funded is at 110% or above, the increase will be granted. If this request is approved, the funding level
would be at 110%. The goal of this formula is to provide sustainable benefit increases to the Little
Canada Fire Relief Association while avoiding volatility in the levy requirements for the City. Both
parties acknowledge that the investment performance is beyond their control and poor investment
performance will likely result in no benefit increases.
In addition to the basic formula above, staff prepared a “sensitivity analysis”. The results of this
analysis are as follows:
Current Benefit Level
Assets-12/31/2020 $2,143,214
Liabilities 1,793,644 (Based on Current Benefit Level of $4,195)
Surplus $349,570 119.50%
With Benefit Increase to $4,680
Assets-12/31/2020 $2,143,214
Liabilities 1,947,665 (Based on Proposed Benefit Level of $4,680)
Surplus $195,549 110%
If there is a 20% loss in asset balance
with benefit increase to $4,680
Assets $1,714,571
Liabilities 1,947,665 (Based on Proposed Benefit Level of $4,680)
Surplus/(deficit) $(233,094)
Required Contribution Calculation:
Normal Costs $140,400
Administrative Costs 7,166
Amortization of deficit 23,309
Less: State Aid (52,109)
Less: 5% Return on Assets (85,729) Based on 20% reduction of 12/31/2020 balance
Required Contribution $33,038 This is larger than City’s current contribution of $32,537
Therefore, it is estimated that the City would be required to make a larger contribution than the
budgeted 2021 City Contribution ($32,537), if the Fire Relief Investment holdings lost more than 20%
market value in 2021.
The following table shows the benefit levels since 1999:
Year Increase Pension Level
1999 $100 $2,500
2001 $200 $2,700
2002 $100 $2,800
2006 $50 $2,850
2007 $250 $3,100
2011 $50 $3,150
2013 $50 $3,200
2014 $65 $3,265
2015 $35 $3,300
2017 $80 $3,380
2018 $560 $3,940
2020 $255 $4,195
2021 $485
(Proposed)
$4,680
(Proposed)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of an increase to the benefit level for the Little Canada Fire Relief
Association by $485 pursuant to our contractual provisions.
Little Canada
Fire Department, Inc. 325 Little Canada Road East
Little Canada, Minnesota 55117
Office: (651) 792-7680
Fax: (651) 766-7092
Friday July 30, 2021
Little Canada City Council
On July 7th the Little Canada Fire Relief Association received their annual audit. The funded
ratio of the account was 119.2 %. Per our agreement a benefit level increase can be
requested if the funding ratio is at or above 110% after the increase as of December 31, 2020
The Little Canada Fire Department Board of Directors is requesting a $485 a year benefit level
increase starting in 2021. This increase would bring the funded ratio to 110.5%.
Thank you for considering this request.
Don Smiley
Fire Chief
LITTLE CANADA FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION
SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
TEN-YEAR SCHEDULE (UNAUDITED)
(24)
Assets in Excess Pension
Net Position of (Unfunded) Benefit
Valuation Available Accrued Accrued Funded Per Year
Date for Benefits Liability Liability Ratio of Service
12/31/2011 1,687,941$ 1,810,346$ (122,405)$ 93.2% 3,150$
12/31/2012 1,803,551 1,831,150 (27,599) 98.5% 3,150
12/31/2013 2,137,035 1,972,206 164,829 108.4% 3,200
12/31/2014 2,075,889 1,867,979 207,910 111.1% 3,265
12/31/2015 2,026,421 1,957,556 68,865 103.5% 3,300
12/31/2016 1,784,782 1,591,293 193,489 112.2% 3,300
12/31/2017 1,928,634 1,514,402 414,232 127.4% 3,380
12/31/2018 1,751,508 1,727,397 24,111 101.4% 3,940
12/31/2019 2,118,408 1,823,017 295,391 116.2% 3,940
12/31/2020 2,143,214 1,793,644 349,570 119.5% 4,195
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
DATE: August 11, 2021
RE: 2021 2nd Quarter Financial Reports
INTRODUCTION:
Attached are the 2021 2nd Quarter Financial Reports for the City of Little Canada.
Attachments:
•General Fund Quarterly Financial Report
•Special Revenue and Enterprise Funds Quarterly Financial Report
•Investments by Maturity and Type
General Fund Revenue
Although first half property tax collections were not received at the City until July, these
collections were included in the General Fund Quarterly Financial Report to reflect a more realistic
budget to actual amount. 44.50% of the budget revenue has been collected in 2021. This is lower
than past years with the exception of 2020.
Highlights:
• Property tax collections are trending as expected at 51.70%. This is consistent with
the prior 5 years.
• Building permits issued for the current year are trending higher than 2020.
• Liquor license revenue reflects the reduction in fees that were granted to
acknowledge the loss of sales that these establishments experienced during the
pandemic.
• The Old Fire Hall rentals and park shelter rentals are in the charges for services
category. These rentals are producing a larger percentage of budget collected in
2021 when compared to 2020, since these rentals did not occur in 2020. The lower
shelter at Spooner Park has been closed for construction in 2021.
• Fine revenue in 2020 trended lower due to a decrease in traffic stops at the
beginning of the pandemic. Fine revenue is trending higher in 2021 when
compared to 2020.
• Investment income is down due to the low interest rate environment that continues
to occur in 2021.
130 116
154
110
138
0
50
100
150
200
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Building Permits Issued 1st Half
General Fund Expenditures
As of June 30th, actual expenditures are at 46.46% of the budget. With the exception of 2020, this
is lowest percentage in the last five years. The lower percentage of expenditures to budget can
largely be attributed to savings in the public works department for salt purchase savings and salary
savings from the Public Works Maintenance position that was vacant during the 1st half of 2021.
The position was kept vacant to not realize budget savings, but to evaluate the department
structure. The evaluation has been completed, and the department is now fully staffed as of the
beginning of August.
Highlights:
• The Elections department includes the first quarter elections services contract
payment, and annual election maintenance payment to Ramsey County. The 2nd
quarter elections services contract was paid in July so this payment is not reflected
in this report.
• The Fire department is at 65.86% of the budget since services are prepaid each
quarter. This is consistent with the practice in prior years.
• Due to timing of storm water maintenance projects and vacancies in the public
works department during the 1st half of 2021, the Storm Water department is
trending lower. It is anticipated that these projects and associated costs will occur
in the 2nd half of 2021.
• The Northeast Youth & Family Services contract is paid once per year, so
Community Partnerships is at 68.79% of the budget. This is consistent with prior
years.
• Expenses for emerald ash borer are reflected in the Shade Tree department. In
addition to the expenses incurred during the 1st half of the year, emerald ash borer
treatment will happen later this year at an estimated cost of $6,000. Tree removal
and stump grinding at Spooner Park occurred in July, and these expenses are not
reflected in this report. The costs at Spooner Park will be covered with a donation
from Canadian Days.
• Due to favorable winter conditions, 28% less salt was purchased in 2021 than 2020
through the 1st half of the year.
Special Revenue and Enterprise Funds
The Quarterly Financial Report for the special revenue and enterprise funds is attached to this
report. All funds fell within the expected budget amounts. The Parks & Recreation fund activity
for 2021 includes the recreational programming activities that are now possible to program in
2021.
Other Items
The City received the first half of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds at the end of July
in the amount of $555,592.27. A spending plan will need to be determined this fall.
Each year, the City receives a sheriff’s reimbursement check when the prior year police services
reconciliation is completed and presented to the Committee of City Administrators. Due to the
events of 2020 and the reconciliation, this reimbursement check will not be received by the City
or any of the contract cities. $90,983 was budgeted in the General Fund for this reimbursement in
2021. This budget shortfall was assigned at the end of 2020 since it was likely that this
reimbursement would not occur in 2021.
Investments
As of June 30, 2021, total cash and investments for all City Funds totaled $16,563,653, and the
allocation by investment type is as follows:
Type Amount Percentage
Money Market $1,123,499 6.78%
4M money market 2,376,694 14.35%
CD’s 11,820,400 71.36%
Treasuries 499,761 3.02%
Agencies 500,000 3.02%
Municipal Bonds 243,299 1.47%
Total $16,563,653 100.00%
Due to investment maturities in June, there is a larger portion of the portfolio in the money market
than in previous reports. Currently, new investments are being purchased with these money market
funds.
Since all the CD’s that City holds are under $250,000, they are FDIC insured. There are two CD’s
at RCU that are collateralized, as per the City’s investment policy. All current investments are
within the City’s Investment Policy.
Since the City’s cash and investments are needed for cash flow in the City’s operating and capital
activities, it is helpful to understand the maturities in order to structure future investment
opportunities. Below are the future maturities for the City’s cash and investments.
The City budgets investment income as part of the budget process so it is helpful to understand the
coupons (interest rate) for the cash and investments.
As of June 30, 2021
Coupon Amount Percentage
To 1.00% $11,843,653 71.50%
1.00% to 1.49% $0 0.00%
1.50% to 1.99% 2,695,000 16.30%
2.00% to 2.49% 1,605,000 9.70%
2.50% to 2.99% 420,000 2.50%
$16,563,653 100.00%
As expected, new investments purchased during the 1st half of 2021, had lower investment coupons
than prior to the pandemic. The Federal Reserve set the Fed Funds Rate to 0 to .25% in February
2020, and it has stayed at this rate.
I am happy to answer any questions regarding the City’s finances and this report.
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
GENERAL FUND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2021 WITH COMPARISON TO JUNE 30, 2020
General Fund
Budget YTD % of Budget Budget YTD % of Budget Highlights/Comments
Revenues:
Taxes 3,217,627 1,663,612 51.70%3,117,156 1,591,342 51.05%Trending as expected and consistent with prior years
Licenses 63,225 12,048 19.05%76,225 10,974 14.40%
Liquor Licenses 47,730 21,280 44.58%47,730 16,597 34.77%2021 and 2020 reflect fee reductions granted due to pandemic
Permits 175,900 62,536 35.55%175,900 64,470 36.65%
Charges for Services 79,089 8,047 10.17%79,089 1,104 1.40%2021 increase due to ability to rent facilities
Fines 44,000 19,419 44.13%44,000 11,094 25.21%2020 had less traffic stops due to pandemic
Intergovernmental Revenue 287,518 64,553 22.45%290,918 67,120 23.07%
Investment Income 37,600 15,772 41.95%64,800 31,078 47.96%Investment income down due to low interest rate environment
Miscellaneous 126,783 876 0.69%129,719 4,418 3.41%
Transfers In 118,400 0 0.00%109,300 0 0.00%Recorded at end of year and consistent with prior years
Total Revenues 4,197,872 1,868,143 44.50%4,134,837 1,798,196 43.49%
Expenditures
Mayor & Council 91,220 38,319 42.01%91,995 38,276 41.61%
Elections 31,600 10,871 34.40%24,550 0 0.00%2021 is 1st year of new elections contract
Administration 207,745 98,077 47.21%188,061 87,022 46.27%
Attorney 95,500 31,752 33.25%101,500 31,297 30.83%
Engineer 24,000 11,487 47.86%45,270 13,772 30.42%
Planning 184,830 88,372 47.81%172,545 64,341 37.29%2020 has salary savings due to a vacant position in Jan/Feb
Insurance 38,930 19,465 50.00%34,380 17,190 50.00%
City Center 31,370 11,483 36.60%31,940 11,573 36.23%
Old Fire Hall 8,200 2,541 30.99%8,100 2,686 33.16%
Police 1,788,317 873,955 48.87%1,716,353 845,615 49.27%
Fire Department 462,875 304,854 65.86%472,728 312,171 66.04%
Fire Marshal 18,000 1,231 6.84%29,000 4,524 15.60%
Protective Inspections 217,810 92,019 42.25%222,435 92,557 41.61%
Emergency Service/Civil Defense 2,860 395 13.81%2,860 211 7.38%
COVID-19 - 840 - 1,483
Animal Control 3,070 175 5.70%3,070 465 15.15%
Streets 309,340 95,930 31.01%315,410 114,654 36.35%
Storm Water 14,290 887 6.21%9,130 4,542 49.75%
Street Lighting 64,800 25,088 38.72%65,000 25,074 38.58%
Recycling/Sanitation 33,140 12,584 37.97%25,360 8,216 32.40%
City Garage 36,560 17,019 46.55%35,000 21,257 60.73%
Parks & Recreation 507,020 201,728 39.79%496,340 196,709 39.63%
Community Partnerships 27,895 19,189 68.79%26,310 18,776 71.36%
Shade Trees 6,000 2,339 38.98%6,000 0 0.00%
2021 savings for PW maint vacancy (hired July) & salt savings
2021 activities will occur in 2nd half of 2021
2021 includes reusable totes that were not in 2020 until 2nd half
2021 activities will occur in 2nd half of 2021
2021 includes the ash trees removed due to EAB
Contingency 15,000 - 0.00%15,000 - 0.00%
Total Expenditures 4,220,372 1,960,599 46.46%4,138,337 1,912,409 46.21%
Rev. over/(under) expen. before BA (22,500) (92,456) (3,500) (114,212)
BA (Budget Amendment) for Efficiencies (38,500) (2,138) 5.55%(78,870) (40,405) 51.23%
Rev. over/(under) expen. after BA (61,000)$ (94,594)$ (82,370)$ (154,617)$
2021 2020
FUND Budget Actual % of Budget Budget Actual % of Budget
Parks & Recreation Revenues 39,420$ 21,359$ 54.18%39,620$ 3,690$ 9.31%
Expenditures 44,935 7,199 16.02%44,995 2,514 5.59%
Net Change (5,515)$ 14,160$ (5,375)$ 1,176$
Cable TV Revenues 115,700$ 34,129$ (1)29.50%120,680$ 29,322$ (1)24.30%
Expenditures 131,707 18,561 (2)14.09%142,398 45,404 31.89%
Net Change (16,007)$ 15,568$ (21,718)$ (16,082)$
(1)2nd quarter franchise fees not received until July each year. 2021 includes Comcast settlement.
(2)2020 expenditures included $10,906 for budgeted capital cable upgrades
and $4,500 for website improvement services
Recycling & Disposal Revenues 455,006$ 236,696$ 52.02%443,895$ 227,797$ 51.32%
Expenditures 472,829 225,448 47.68%459,930 218,102 47.42%
Net Change (17,823)$ 11,248$ (3)(16,035)$ 9,695$
(3)Organized collection contract to be renegotiated in 2021.
Water Operating Revenues 1,685,980$ 896,522$ 53.18%1,654,630$ 806,872$ 48.76%
Expenditures 1,446,790 696,482 48.14%1,405,855 661,938 47.08%
Net Income before other items 239,190 200,040 248,775 144,934
Depreciation (253,000) - (251,000) -
Net Income/(loss)(13,810)$ 200,040$ (4)(2,225)$ 144,934$
(4)Rate increase effective in 2021. Last rate increase was in 2018.
Sewer Operating Revenues 1,520,800$ 841,108$ 55.31%1,454,080$ 775,118$ 53.31%
Expenditures 1,429,496 672,825 47.07%1,345,280 671,189 49.89%
Net Income before other items 91,304 168,283 108,800 103,929
Depreciation (138,000) (176,000) -
Net Income/(loss)(46,696)$ 168,283$ (4)(67,200)$ 103,929$
(4)Rate increase effective in 2021. Last rate increase was in 2018.
2021 2020
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
SPECIAL REVENUE AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2021 WITH COMPARISON TO JUNE 30, 2020
Investments and Cash 06/30/2021
Interest Purchase Maturity Call Investment
Type Rate Date Date Date Amount
CD 2.100%7/19/19 7/19/21 N/A $245,000
CD 0.200%7/14/20 7/22/21 N/A $247,000
CD 2.050%8/9/17 8/9/21 N/A $245,000
CD 0.150%9/2/20 9/2/21 N/A $245,000
CD 0.200%8/21/20 9/8/21 N/A $249,400
CD 0.200%8/21/20 9/8/21 N/A $249,400
CD 0.200%9/22/20 9/22/21 N/A $249,400
CD 2.050%10/30/15 10/1/21 6/30/2021 $245,000
CD 1.800%10/9/19 10/12/21 N/A $245,000
CD 2.650%12/5/14 12/3/21 N/A $25,000
CD 0.100%12/17/20 12/17/21 N/A $247,000
2021 Maturities 2,492,200$
CD 0.250%7/1/20 1/4/22 N/A $218,000
CD 0.200%8/24/20 2/24/22 N/A $248,000
CD 2.600%4/3/19 4/4/22 N/A $150,000
CD 0.700%10/13/20 4/13/22 N/A $1,004,689
CD 1.700%11/29/19 5/31/22 N/A $245,000
CD 2.500%6/6/19 6/6/22 N/A $245,000
CD 2.200%6/26/19 6/27/22 N/A $230,000
CD 1.700%12/16/19 7/18/22 N/A $245,000
CD 0.200%9/1/20 7/25/22 N/A $245,000
CD 2.350%8/18/17 8/18/22 N/A $245,000
CD 1.850%8/29/19 8/29/22 N/A $245,000
CD 1.800%8/30/19 8/30/22 N/A $245,000
CD 2.200%8/30/17 8/30/22 N/A $245,000
CD 0.850%10/13/20 10/13/22 N/A $1,005,696
Treasuries 0.150%12/2/20 10/31/22 N/A $499,761
CD 1.700%11/28/19 11/28/22 N/A $245,000
CD 1.700%11/29/19 11/29/22 N/A $245,000
CD 1.800%12/13/19 12/13/22 N/A $245,000
2022 Maturities 6,051,146$
CD 1.750%11/27/19 5/26/23 N/A $245,000
CD 0.150%12/30/20 6/28/23 N/A $245,000
CD 0.200%6/30/21 6/30/23 N/A $245,000
CD 0.200%2/10/21 8/10/23 N/A $245,000
CD 2.150%8/16/17 8/16/23 N/A $150,000
CD 1.850%10/31/19 10/31/23 N/A $245,000
Agencies 0.270%11/25/20 11/23/23 11/23/2021 $500,000
CD 0.300%12/11/20 12/11/23 N/A $245,000
2023 Maturities 2,120,000$
Municipal 0.450%3/31/21 3/1/24 N/A $125,383
CD 0.400%6/30/21 6/30/24 N/A $245,000
CD 1.750%2/24/20 8/14/24 N/A $245,000
CD 0.250%2/19/21 8/19/24 N/A $245,000
2024 Maturities 860,383$
CD 0.400%4/5/21 1/8/25 N/A $245,000
CD 0.500%2/12/21 2/12/25 7/12/21 $245,000
CD 0.630%3/25/21 3/5/25 N/A $241,815
CD 0.650%4/29/21 4/29/25 N/A $200,000
2025 Maturities 931,815$
Municipal 0.550%2/17/21 3/1/26 N/A $117,916
CD 0.900%3/25/21 3/25/26 N/A $245,000
CD 1.000%4/13/21 4/13/26 7/13/21 $245,000
2026 Maturities 607,916$
Total Investments 13,063,460$
MM 1,123,499$
4M 0.020%2,376,694$
Total Investments and 4M Fund 16,563,653$
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council
FROM: Chris Heineman, City Administrator
Heidi Heller, City Clerk/HR Manager
DATE: August 11, 2021
RE: Consider Amendments to City Code Chapter 2204, Exclusion Zones & Prohibition
of Certain Employment-Related Activities
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Discuss amending City Code Chapter 2204, Exclusion Zones & Prohibition of Certain
Employment-Related Activities
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, Taylors Falls was the first city in Minnesota to adopt an ordinance putting restrictions on
predatory offenders on where they could live in the city. Many other cities across the state have
since also adopted similar ordinances. This is a sensitive subject and cities that choose to adopt
restrictions must balance protecting their residents against not violating the rights of designated
predatory offenders who have served their sentences and been released.
In March 2016, Little Canada adopted an ordinance creating City Code Chapter 2204, which
established “exclusion zones.” These are areas where any individual that is required to register as a
predatory offender cannot be present or live in the city. These exclusion zones are a 500-foot radius
around any school, school bus stop, church or place of worship, public park or city easement or
public wooded or open space or any public trails or fishing piers, or a child care facility.
This ordinance also includes language prohibiting predatory offenders from operating, managing,
being employed by, acting as a contractor or volunteer, or attending in any public or private fair or
carnival (including Canadian Days, LC ice cream social, etc.). The offenders also cannot operate,
manage, be employed by or act as a contractor or volunteer at any school, school bus stop, church or
place of worship, public park or city easement or public wooded or open space or any public trails
or fishing piers.
West St. Paul adopted a predatory offender ordinance in 2016, and was sued the following year by a
registered offender who had been living in the city and was informed they could not be in that
location per the adopted ordinance. This lawsuit resulted in an $84,000 settlement paid by the city
after the judge agreed with the offender’s argument that West St. Paul’s ordinance was too broad
and unconstitutional because it imposed retroactive punishment by banishing the offender from
almost all of the city. West St. Paul amended their ordinance in 2018 to narrow the scope of who is
considered an offender, and removed state licensed residential care facilities and housing with
services facilities from the prohibited residences.
Little Canada city staff have received some inquiries over the past two years about our predatory
offender restrictions. Current staff is concerned with how broad Chapter 2204 is and that it could
leave the city open to a lawsuit. When Council was considering this ordinance, it was decided that
the chosen parameters would be put in place and then see how it goes. Now five years later, due to
a recent inquiry and the result of West St. Paul’s lawsuit, staff is recommending that the Council
review Chapter 2204 and consider amendments. Staff has discussed this with the City Attorney,
who is also concerned that Little Canada’s City Code is too broad and recommends that City Code
Chapter 2204 be amended. He suggests following West St. Paul’s amended version of their
predatory offender ordinance since it had been developed from a court settlement.
Concerns about City Code Chapter 2204:
• The broad scope of City Code 2204, particularly the definition of predatory offender and the
limited residential area not in an exclusion zone, leaves the City vulnerable to a lawsuit
• Including a 500-foot radius around bus stops excludes the majority of residential areas
• The map of bus stops changes at least annually, possibly more often as students move and
bus stops change to accommodate new student addresses
• Every person who is required to register as a predatory offender is governed by this
ordinance - this is a very wide scope of people
• Section 2204.030f: Should the city be restricting who the offender can work for? Should
city staff be monitoring where local offenders are working or volunteering in Little Canada?
Potential amendments to consider:
• Narrow the scope of who is considered an offender:
o Limit to Level 3 only
o Limit to Level 2 and 3 only
o Have a list of “designated offenses” like several other cities have (list of MN State
Statutes for each type of offense – see West St. Paul’s ordinance)
• Remove the bus stop exclusion zones - unless the scope of defined offenders is narrowed
• Remove Sec. 2204.030f
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Consider amendments to City Code Chapter 2204, Exclusion Zones & Prohibition of Certain
Employment-Related Activities. If Council chooses to make amendments to the City Code, staff
will draft an Ordinance for Council action at an upcoming meeting.
Attachments:
1. Chart showing other east metro city predatory offender restrictions & list of cities with no
restrictions
2. Article about West St. Paul lawsuit
3. Little Canada City Code Chapter 2204
4. Adopted March 2016 map showing the Exclusion Zones
• The green on the map is the area left after the 500-foot radius around schools, church
or place of worship, public park, city easement, public wooded or open space, any
public trails and fishing piers – including these locations that are in adjacent cities
and a 500-foot radius spills into Little Canada
• The circles on the map are the 500-foot radius around bus stops (as of March 2016).
The map has not been updated since the initial adoption of the ordinance.
5. West St. Paul’s amended predatory offender ordinance
City Who is defined as the Predatory
Offender?
Offender
defined
with a
specific risk
level?
Radius
Distance
(feet)
From where? Includes
bus
stops?
Date of
adoption?
Little
Canada
A person who is required to register
as a predatory offender
No 500 -Any school
-School bus stop
-Church/place of worship
-Public park
-City easement
-Public wooded/open space
-Public trails
-Public fishing piers
-Child care facility
Yes March 2016
Centerville Any person convicted of a
designated sexual offense (see
offense list), or been categorized as
a Level 3 sex offender
Yes
Level 3
2,000
1,000
-Any school
-Licensed day care center
-Park
-Playground
-Public school bus stop
-Church that provides regular
educational programs (ex.
Sunday School)
-Other places where children are
known to congregate
Yes August 2009
North Oaks
A person who is required to register
as a predatory offender
No 500 -Any school
-School bus stop
-Church/place of worship
-Public park
-City easement
-Public wooded/open space
-Public trails
-Public fishing piers
-Child care facility
Yes May 2016
White Bear
Township
A person who is required to register
as a predatory offender
No 1,000 -Any school
-Licensed day care center
-Park or playground
-Public school bus stop
-Church
-Public park or town easement
-Public wooded space or open
space
-Any docks at any beaches
-Other places where children are
known to congregate
Yes September
2016
St. Anthony Any person who has been
categorized as a Level 3 predatory
offender
Yes
Level 3
1,000 -Any school
-Licensed child care facility
-Public playground
No February 2017
Mahtomedi Any person convicted or required to
register as a predatory offender and
assigned as Level 3 offender
Yes
Level 3
750 -Any school
-Licensed child care center
-Public Park
No
West St.
Paul
Any person who is required to
register as a predatory offender and
is assigned as Level 2 or 3 and has
been convicted of a designated
sexual offense (see list of offenses)
Yes
Level 2 or 3
1,200 -Public or private school
-Licensed child care facilities
No December 2016
Amended:
March 2018
*City was sued
in 2017 and
paid a
settlement
Vadnais
Heights
Any person convicted or required to
register as a predatory offender and
assigned as Level 3 offender
Yes
Level 3
500 -Any school
-Licensed child care center
-Library
-City Park
-Religious facility
-Bus stop
-State Licensed residential facility
housing minors
-Adult use business
Yes November 2017
Shoreview Any person who has been convicted
of a designated sexual offense (see
list of offenses) or is required to
register as a predatory offender in
which the victim was less than 16
years of age or is assigned as Level 3
Yes
Level 3
Victim
under 16
500 -Any school bus stop Yes October 2017
Mounds
View
Any person who has been convicted
of a designated sexual offense (see
list of offenses) in which the victim
was less than 16 years of age or is
assigned as Level 3
Yes
Level 3
Victim
under 16
1,000 -Any school
-Licensed day care
-Church that provides regular
educational programs
-Parks & Playgrounds
No December 2016
Taylors Falls Any person who has been convicted
of a designated sexual offense (see
list of offenses) in which the victim
was less than 16 years of age or is
assigned as Level 3
Yes
Level 3
Victim
under 16
2,000
1,000
-Any school
-Licensed day care center
-Park or playground
-Any public school bus stop
-Church that provides regular
educational programs
-Other places where children are
known to congregate
Yes February 2006
Cities with no Predatory Offender Exclusion Zones or Restrictions
• St. Paul
• White Bear Lake
• Blaine
• Arden Hills
• Forest Lake
• Maplewood
• Oakdale
• Falcon Heights
• Columbia Heights – in December 2015 the Council adopted a 1-year moratorium that did not allow predatory offenders to
move in to the city, but they allowed the moratorium to expire and did not adopt any permanent restrictions.
______
By By NICK FERRARONICK FERRARO | | nferraro@pioneerpress.comnferraro@pioneerpress.com | Pioneer Press | Pioneer Press
PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: June 11, 2018 at 5:22 p.m.June 11, 2018 at 5:22 p.m. | UPDATED: | UPDATED: June 12, 2018 at 11:05 a.m.June 12, 2018 at 11:05 a.m.
A sex offender who sued West St. Paul over its 2016 ordinance that restricted where he could live will receive $84,000 as part of aA sex offender who sued West St. Paul over its 2016 ordinance that restricted where he could live will receive $84,000 as part of a
settlement agreement approved by a federal judge Monday.settlement agreement approved by a federal judge Monday.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge John Tunheim entered an order that dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit that Level 1 sex offenderU.S. District Court Chief Judge John Tunheim entered an order that dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit that Level 1 sex offender
Thomas Wayne Evenstad filed against the city in August.Thomas Wayne Evenstad filed against the city in August. As part of the settlement, both parties will pay their own costs and attorney fees. As part of the settlement, both parties will pay their own costs and attorney fees.
Thomas Wayne EvenstadThomas Wayne Evenstad
West St. Paul is among at least 84 cities, townships or counties in Minnesota with residency restrictions for sex offenders, according to theWest St. Paul is among at least 84 cities, townships or counties in Minnesota with residency restrictions for sex offenders, according to the
Department of Corrections.Department of Corrections.
But Evenstad, 52, and his attorneys argued that West St. Paul’s ordinance was too broad and unconstitutional because it imposedBut Evenstad, 52, and his attorneys argued that West St. Paul’s ordinance was too broad and unconstitutional because it imposed
retroactive punishment by banishing him from almost all of the city.retroactive punishment by banishing him from almost all of the city.
Tunheim agreed, granting in January Evenstad’s motion for a preliminary injunction that prevented the city from enforcing the ordinanceTunheim agreed, granting in January Evenstad’s motion for a preliminary injunction that prevented the city from enforcing the ordinance
against him. Tunheim concluded that Evenstad likely would prevail with his lawsuit in trial because the ordinance is “significantly moreagainst him. Tunheim concluded that Evenstad likely would prevail with his lawsuit in trial because the ordinance is “significantly more
restrictive than those upheld by the 8th Circuit.”restrictive than those upheld by the 8th Circuit.”
Adele Nicholas, a Chicago civil rights attorney who agreed to take on Evenstad’s lawsuit, said Monday that she and Evenstad are pleasedAdele Nicholas, a Chicago civil rights attorney who agreed to take on Evenstad’s lawsuit, said Monday that she and Evenstad are pleased
with the result.with the result.
“We think Judge Tunheim’s decision is really important because it establishes that municipalities don’t have unlimited discretion to pass“We think Judge Tunheim’s decision is really important because it establishes that municipalities don’t have unlimited discretion to pass
law that restricts where people are allowed to live. There are some limitations and the restrictions have to be reasonable,” she said.law that restricts where people are allowed to live. There are some limitations and the restrictions have to be reasonable,” she said.
Nicholas noted how Nicholas noted how West St. Paul amended the ordinance in March,West St. Paul amended the ordinance in March, loosening the restrictions. It now applies only to Level 2 and Level 3 loosening the restrictions. It now applies only to Level 2 and Level 3
offenders whose crimes involved children, not to Level 1 offenders or those whose crimes involved adults. Also, group homes wereoffenders whose crimes involved children, not to Level 1 offenders or those whose crimes involved adults. Also, group homes were
eliminated from a 1,200-foot restriction.eliminated from a 1,200-foot restriction.
In 1999, a jury found Evenstad guilty of raping an 18-year-old Richfield woman he met through a telephone dating chat line. Before heIn 1999, a jury found Evenstad guilty of raping an 18-year-old Richfield woman he met through a telephone dating chat line. Before he
was released from prison in 2008, he was assessed to be a Level 1 offender, meaning he is least likely to re-offend.was released from prison in 2008, he was assessed to be a Level 1 offender, meaning he is least likely to re-offend.
Evenstad moved into a friend’s West St. Paul home last August. Three days later, a West St. Paul police investigator called the landlord andEvenstad moved into a friend’s West St. Paul home last August. Three days later, a West St. Paul police investigator called the landlord and
said Evenstad had to go.said Evenstad had to go.
The city cited Evenstad’s first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction in 1999 as the reason he could not live in the home, a 1½-storyThe city cited Evenstad’s first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction in 1999 as the reason he could not live in the home, a 1½-story
duplex on a corner lot near Dodd Road.duplex on a corner lot near Dodd Road.
On Monday, Evenstad said that he left West St. Paul in mid-March and now lives in St. Paul, which imposes no limitations on sexOn Monday, Evenstad said that he left West St. Paul in mid-March and now lives in St. Paul, which imposes no limitations on sex
offenders.offenders.
“In all honesty, I think it’s poetic justice,” he said.“In all honesty, I think it’s poetic justice,” he said.
NEWSNEWS
Sex offender who sued West St. Paul to get $84K inSex offender who sued West St. Paul to get $84K in
settlement. He now lives in St. Paul.settlement. He now lives in St. Paul.
2204-1
2204. EXCLUSION ZONES AND PROHIBITION
OF CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES
2204.010: PURPOSE: The City of Little Canada considers the safety of its residents, its children
in particular, to be of critical importance and the potential threat of designated predatory
offenders in close proximity to them to be an unacceptable risk. This chapter is intended to
exclude sex offenders and predators from locations throughout the City of Little Canada to help
protect the welfare and safety of the residents and reduce the risk presented by the presence of
predatory offenders in close proximity to the public, children in particular, in areas that the City
has control over.
2204.020: DEFINITIONS:
a. Predatory offender: A person who is required to register as a predatory offender
under Minn. Stat. ₴243.166.
2204.030: A predatory offender shall not do any of the following:
a. Be present upon or within 500 feet of any school, school bus stop, church or place of
worship, public park or city easement or public wooded or open space or any public
trails, as well as any public fishing piers.
b. Be present on or in any vehicle or other conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by
a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school without the written permission
of the school administrator or school administrator's designee when the vehicle is in
use to transport students to or from a school or school-related activities, unless
enrolled as a student at the school or unless the vehicle is simultaneously made
available to the public as a form of public transportation.
c. Be present upon the real property of a child care facility without the written
permission of the child care facility administrator.
d. Be present upon or within 500 feet of the real property boundary of a child care
facility.
e. Operate, manage, be employed by, or act as a contractor or volunteer, or attend or
participate in any public or private fair or carnival including but not limited to the
Canadian Days, Little Canada Recreation Association Skating Party, Little Canada
Ice Cream Social, and the Music in the Park series.
f. Operate, manage, be employed by, or act as a contractor or volunteer at any place
enumerated in section 2204.030 a. above.
2204-2
2204.040: EXCEPTIONS:
A predatory offender:
a. Who, as of the date of enactment of this ordinance, resides in a dwelling located
within 500 feet of the real property boundary of, child care facility, or place intended
primarily for the use by the public as specified in section 2204.030.a shall not be in
violation of section 2204.030 for having an established residence within the exclusion
zone. Nothing in this provision shall permit conduct which is otherwise prohibited as
enumerated in section 2204.030.a.
b. Who is the parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be in violation of section
2204.030 solely during the period of time reasonably necessary to transport the
offender's own minor child or ward to or from a place specified in section 2204.030.
c. Who is legally entitled to vote shall not be in violation of section 2204.030 solely for
the period of time reasonably necessary to exercise the right to vote in a public
election if the polling location of the offender is located in a place specified in section
2204.030.
2204.050: CRIMINAL PENALTIES: Any person violating any provision of this ordinance
shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Source: Ord. 798)
Section 2204 Exclusion Zones for Sexual Offenders - MAP2204-3
CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 18-08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 97 OF THE
WEST ST. PAUL CITY CODE REGARDING PREDATORY OFFENDERS
The City Council of West St. Paul does ordain:
SECTION 1. West St. Paul City Code Section 97 relating to Predatory Offenders is hereby
amended as follows:
§ 97.01 FINDINGS AND INTENT.
(A) Repeat predatory offenders, predatory offenders who use physical violence, and
predatory offenders who prey on children and vulnerable individuals, are predators who present a
threat to the public safety. Predatory offenders are likely to use physical violence or force and to
repeat their offenses. Most predatory offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims
than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. Moreover, predatory
offenders often learn and evolve as they commit additional offenses, thereby making detection of
their unlawfulness more difficult for authorities. This makes the cost of predatory offender
victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant.
(B) It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city’s compelling interest to promote,
protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city by creating areas
around locations where children and vulnerable individuals regularly congregate wherein certain
predatory offenders are prohibited from establishing a primary or secondary address.
§ 97.02 DEFINITIONS.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
DESIGNATED SEXUAL OFFENSE. A conviction, adjudication of delinquency,
commitment under M.S. Ch. 253B, or admission of guilt under oath without adjudication involving
any of the following offenses: Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a), (b), (g), (h); § 609.343, subd.
1(a), (b), (g), (h); § 609.344, subd. 1(a), (b), (e), (f), (g); § 609.345, subd. 1(a), (b), (e), (f), (g); §
609.352; § 617.23, subd. 2(1), subd. 3(1); § 617.246, subd. 2,M.S. §§ 609.342, 609.343, 609.344,
609.345, 609.352, 609.365, 617.23, 617.246, 617.247, 617.293, successor statutes, or a similar
offense from another state.
PREDATORY DESIGNATED OFFENDER. Any person who (1) is required to register
as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, (2) is assigned at Risk Level II or Risk
Level III under Minn. Stat. § 244.052, subd. 3, is required to register as a predatory offender under
M.S. § 243.166, or and (3) has been convicted of a designated sexual offense, regardless of whether
Ordinance No. 18-08
Page 2 of 4
2
the adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than 16 years of
age. However, the terms do not include persons required to register based solely on a delinquency
adjudication.
PRIMARY ADDRESS. The mailing address of the person's dwelling. If the mailing
address is different from the actual location of the dwelling, primary address also includes the
physical location of the dwelling described with as much specificity as possible.
SECONDARY ADDRESS. The mailing address of any place where the person regularly
or occasionally stays overnight when not staying at the person’s primary address. If the mailing
address is different from the actual location of the place, secondary address also includes the
physical location of the place described with as much specificity as possible. However, the location
of a supervised publicly or privately- operated shelter or facility designated to provide temporary
living accommodations for homeless individuals as defined in M.S. § 116L.361, subd. 5, does not
constitute a secondary address.
§ 97.03 RESIDENCE PROHIBITION; PENALTIES; EXCEPTIONS.
(A) Prohibited location of residence. It is unlawful for any designated offender to
establish a primary address or secondary address within 1,200 of any of the following places:
(1) Public or private school; or
(2) Licensed child care facilities; or.
(3) State licensed residential care facilities or registered housing with services
establishments.
(B) Prohibited activity. It is unlawful for any designated offender to participate in a
holiday event involving children under 18 years of age, such as distributing candy or other items
to children on Halloween, wearing a Santa Claus costume on or preceding Christmas, or wearing
an Easter bunny costume on or preceding Easter. Holiday events in which the offender is the parent
or guardian of the children involved, and no non-familial children are present, are exempt from
this division.
(C) Measurement of distance.
(1) For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the
requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer
property line of the primary address or secondary address to the nearest
outer property line of the places identified in division (A).
(2) The City Clerk shall maintain an official map showing prohibited locations
as defined by this chapter. The Clerk shall update the map at least annually
to reflect any changes in the location of prohibited zones.
Ordinance No. 18-08
Page 3 of 4
3
(D) Penalties. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor or administrative citation and shall be punished as provided in this code. Each day a
person maintains a residence in violation of this chapter constitutes a separate violation.
(E) Exceptions. A predatory designated offender residing within a prohibited area as
described in division (A) of this section does not commit a violation of this section if any of the
following applies:
(1) The person established the primary address or secondary address and
reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. §§ 243.166, 243.167,
or successor statute, prior to December 18, 2016.
(2) The person was a minor when he/she committed the offense and was not
convicted as an adult.
(3) The person is a minor.
(4) The school or, licensed child care facility, state licensed residential care
facilities or registered housing with services establishment within 1,200 of
the person’s primary address or secondary address was opened after the
person established the primary address or secondary address and reported
and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. §§ 243.166 or 243.167.
(5) The residence is also the primary address and secondary address of the
person’s parents, grandparents, adult children, or spouse.
§ 97.04 RENTING REAL PROPERTY; PENALTIES.
(A) It is unlawful to let or rent any place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other
conveyance, with the knowledge that it will be used as a primary address or secondary address by
any person prohibited from establishing such primary address or secondary address pursuant to
this chapter, if such place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other conveyance, is located within
a prohibited location zone described in § 97.03(A) of this chapter.
(B) A property owner’s failure to comply with provisions of this section shall constitute
a violation of this section.
(C) If a property owner discovers or is informed that a tenant is a designated offender
after signing a lease or otherwise agreeing to let the offender reside on the property, the owner or
property manager may evict the offender.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the
entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is
approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance:
Ordinance No. 18-08
Page 4 of 4
4
The amendments to the ordinance, City Code § 97, address the concerns that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota identified in its Order dated January 25, 2018,
in Evenstad v. West St. Paul, No. 17-cv-4067. The amended ordinance prevents certain
designated offenders from establishing a residence in the City that is within 1,200 feet of
schools or licensed child care centers.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage and publication according to law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of West St. Paul, Minnesota, this 12th day of March 2018.
Attest:
Jenny Halverson, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnmnmnmnm
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!
!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!
! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Kennedy
Dodd
Harmon
Emerson Oakdale
Haskell
Thompson
Oaks Golf
Course
Sports
Complex
Southview
Marthaler
Ice Arena
Weschcke
Mud Lake
Orme Swimming
Pool
Albert
Garlough
Thompson
County
Dodge
Nature
Center
Southview
Country ClubWEST ST PAULMENDOTA HEIGHTSWEST ST PAULSOUTH ST PAULWEST ST PAUL
INVER GROVE HEIGHTSWEST ST PAUL
SUNFISH LAKE
MENDOTAHEIGHTSSUNFISH LAKESOUTH ST PAUL
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
INVER GROVE
HEIGHTS
SUNFISH LAKE
Schools and Daycare Facilities In West St. Paul
and Neighboring Cities with 1,200' Buffers
±
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Legend
nm Schools
#*Daycare Facilities
School Grounds - 1,200' Merged Buffer
Daycare Facilities - 1,200' Merged Buffer
Map dated February 2018.
Prepared for the
West St. Paul Police Department
by the Dakota County Office of GIS.