Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2015 Council PacketAGENDA LITTLE CANADA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 CALL TO ORDER — Workshop Meeting — City Council — 6:00 p.m. Roll Call 1. Prosecution and Other Legal Issues Adjourn CALL TO ORDER — Regular Meeting — City Council — 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Mayor Mr. John Keis Council Member Mr. Rick Montour Council Member Mr. Michael McGraw Council Member Mr. Tom Fischer Council Member Mr. Christian Torkelson City Administrator Mr. Joel Hanson City Attorney Mr. Patrick Kelly City Planner Mr. Steve Grittman Cable TV Producer Mr. Kevin Helander City Clerk Ms. Kathy Glanzer APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES February 11, 2015 Regular Council Meeting ANNOUNCEMENTS Little Canada Recreation Association Donation for Warming House -Jon Joriman **This agenda is subject to change by additions and deletions.** AGENDA CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 25, 2015 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Property Division — 716 LaBore Road — Jerry Carlson, Exceptional Homes by Design 3. Municipal Consent for MnPASS Phase II Project PRESENTATIONS 4. Northeast Youth & Family Services — Jerry Hromatka CONSENT AGENDA 5. Approval of the Vouchers 6. Establishing a Fire Escrow Account 7. Awarding Quotes for Low Voltage Work at Public Works Garage 8. Approval of Pay Request — FPI Paving — Little Canada Road Improvement STAFF & CONSULTANT REPORTS City Attorney City Planner City Administrator 9. Order Appraisal of Old Public Works Garage 10. Update on 56 Little Canada Road East 11. Call for Workshop with the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department DEPARTMENT REPORT Economic Development/City Council Public Safety/Gaming Public Works Building/Zoning/Code Enforcement Parks & Recreation 12. Gervais Mill Fishing Pier Repairs Adjourn 2 RELEVANT LINKS: See Parc VII —F— Abatement. Hannan v. Cin of Minneapolis, 623 N.W.2d 2S1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). Ciro of Ramsey v. Kiefer, No. A08-1714 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 25. 2009) (unpublished decision). Handbook, Chapter 11. Handbook Chapter 12. Minn. Stat. § 415.17. As part of the criminal sentencing, some or all of the actual jail time or fines may be suspended (or stayed), so long as the nuisance condition is remedied within a particular period of time. C. Civil actions When the city has reasonable grounds to believe a nuisance exists, it may bring a civil action in district court to end that activity. Rather than seek criminal penalties, cities often pursue a civil remedy to achieve compliance with a city ordinance. Civil actions are generally faster, preferred by the courts, and provide the city the advantage of a lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence). Civil remedies can include injunctions or restraining orders. Subsequent violations of restraining orders can be enforced though contempt proceedings. D. Administrative enforcement 4 Some cities have adopted administrative enforcement ordinances for dealing with nuisance conditions. An administrative process is a quasi, non -judicial alternative remedy. Under this system, property owners (or other types of alleged nuisance violators) are provided the opportunity to present their side before an administrative hearing officer (or panel) appointed by the city council. When violations are found, penalties typically follow a pre -established schedule: more nominal fees for a first violation with increased penalties for subsequent acts. The advantage to establishing an administrative hearing procedure is that it is less formal, less costly, and potentially less intimidating than the court system. The accused is given a chance to cone into compliance, with all monies collected retained by the city, not distributed through the state court system. Cities should be aware that both the state auditor and the state attorney general have questioned whether cities have authority to enact these local processes. Accordingly, cities contemplating such an ordinance should work closely with their city attorney. E. Licensing Cities also address nuisance conditions through conunon regulatory means, such as city licenses, permits, and other forms of required registration. The use of licenses and permits offer cities an effective means to monitor compliance. The conditions included with the application process help ensure that an applicant complies with ordinance requirements before the license or permit is issued. If it is found at a later time that the license or permit holder is not in compliance, the city can League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 5. Minn. Stat. § 202A.19, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 204C.03, subd, 1, Minn. Stat. § 645.15. Minn. Stat, § 13D,01. Rupp v. Mayasich, 533 N.W.2d 893 (Minn, Q. App. 1995).Si, Cloud Newspapers. Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W,2d 1 (Minn. 1983). See section 1 -Types of meetings and notice requirements. Minn. Stat. § 131,04, subd. 7. Minn, Stat. § 131.01, subd. 6. IPAD 08-015. IPAD 13-015 (noting that the open meeting law "is silent with respect to agendas; it neither requires them nor prohibits them"). Minn. Stat. § 13D 01, subd. 6. boli oliday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday is consid • be a a holiday falls on a Sunday, the next Monda nsidered to be a holiday. In addition, city counci times: • After 6 p.m. on • Between 6 p.m within the ngs may e held during the following the e ng of a ma +.litical party precinct caucus. 8 p.m. on a day when'` .; is an election being held s boundaries. State 1 .oes not prohibit meetings on weekends. Howeve ; c:_.ae law re Ing how time is computed for the purpose of giving any re ;•ed tice provides that if the last day of notice falls on either a Saturday Sunday, that day cannot be counted. • 1I. The open meeting law A. Purpose The Minnesota open meeting law generally requires that all meetings of public bodies must be open to the public. This presumption of openness serves three vital purposes: • Prohibits actions from being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning decisions of public bodies or detect improper influences. • Ensures the public's right to be informed. • Gives the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body. B. Public notice Public notice generally must be provided for meetings of a public body subject to the open meeting law. The notice requirements depend on the type of meeting. However, if a person receives actual notice of a meeting at (east 24 hours before it takes place, all notice requirements under the open meeting law are satisfied regardless of the method of receipt. C. Printed Materials At least one copy of the printed materials relating to agenda items that are provided to the council at or before a meeting must also be made available for public inspection in the meeting room while the governing body considers the subject matter. This requirement does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: Meetings of City Councils 11/14/2014 Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 131.01, subd. 1. Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 1998). Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Com nmity Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). Minn. Stat. § 412 191, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (5). See section 11-G-6 for more information about serial meetings. Minn. Stat. § 131.01, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 131.05, subd. 1 (d). IPAD 14-005. IPAD 13-012. D. Groups governed by the open meeting law The open meeting law applies to all governing bodies of any school district, unorganized territory, county, city, town or other public body, and to any committee, sub -committee, board, department or commission of a public body. Thus, the law applies to meetings of all city councils, planning commissions, firefighter relief associations, economic development authorities, and housing redevelopment authorities, among others. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held, however, that the governing body of a municipal power agency, created under Minn. Stat. §§ 453.51-453.62, is not subject to the open meeting law because the Minnesota Legislature granted these agencies authority to conduct their affairs as private corporations. E. Gatherings governed by the open meeting law The open meeting law does not define the term "meeting." The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has ruled that meetings are gatherings of a quorum or more of the members of the governing body, or a quorum of a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof, at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. A majority of the members of a statutory city council constitutes a quorum. A majority of the qualified members of any board or commission also constitutes a quorum. Home rule charter cities may have different quorum requirements. The open meeting law does not generally apply in situations where less than a quorum of the city council is involved. However, serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum that are held in order to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law may be found to violated the law, depending on the specific facts. F. Open meeting law exceptions There are seven exceptions to the open meeting law. Under these exceptions, some meetings may be closed and some meetings must be closed. Before a meeting is closed under any of the exceptions, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has advised that a member of the public body (and not its attorney) must make the statement on the record. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: The Free Press i'. County of Blue Earlh, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that a county's statement that it was closing a meeting under the attorney- client privilege to discuss "pending litigation" did not satisfy the requirement of describing the subject to be discussed at a closed meeting). Minn. Stat. § 13D.05. subd. I (d) Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 5. Minn. Stat. § 13D.03. IPAD 13-012. Minn. Stat. § 13D.03. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. IPAD 05-027. IPAD 00-037. The commissioner has also advised that citing the specific statutory authority that permits the closed meeting is the simplest way to satisfy the requirement for stating the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed. Both the commissioner and the Minnesota Court of Appeals have concluded that something more specific than a general statement is needed to satisfy the requirement of providing a description of the subject to be discussed. All closed meetings, except those closed as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting. The same notice requirements that apply to open meetings also apply to closed meetings. For example, if a closed meeting takes place at a regular meeting, the notice requirements for a regular meeting apply. Likewise, if a closed meeting takes place as a special meeting, the notice requirements for a special meeting would apply. 1. Meetings that may be closed The public body may choose to close certain meetings. The following types of meetings may be closed: a. Labor negotiations under PELRA A meeting to consider strategies for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or development or discussion of labor -negotiation proposals, may be closed. However, the actual negotiations must be done at an open meeting if a quorum of the council is present. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • The council must decide to close the meeting by a majority vote at a public meeting and must announce the time and place of the closed meeting. • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. • A written record of all people present at the closed meeting must be available to the public after the closed meeting. • The meeting must be tape-recorded. • The recording must be kept for two years after the contract is signed. • The recording becomes public after all labor agreements are signed by the city council for the current budget period. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(a). Minn. Stat. § 131.05, subd. 3(a). Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. IPAD 05-013 (advising that a government entity could close a meeting under this exception to discuss its contract with an independent contractor when that contractor is an individual human being). IPAD 14-007 (discussing what type of summary is sufficient). Minn. Stat. § 1 3D.05, subd. 3(b). Brainerd Daily Dispatch, LLC n. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002). Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of St. Paid, 435 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). Minneapolis Stat cf Tribune v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Minneapolis, 251 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. 1976). If an action claiming that other public business was transacted at the closed meeting is brought during the time the tape is not public, the court will review the recording privately. If it finds no violation of the open meeting law, the action will be dismissed and the recording will be preserved in court records until it becomes available to the public. If the court determines there may have been a violation, the entire recording may be introduced at the trial. However, the court may issue appropriate protective orders requested by either party. b. Performance evaluations A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • The public body must identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing the meeting. • The meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting, so some advance notice to the individual is needed in order to allow the individual to make a decision. • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. • The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. • At the next open meeting, the public body must summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. The council should be careful not to release private or confidential data in its summary. c. Attorney-client privilege Meetings between the governing body and its attorney to discuss active, threatened, or pending litigation may be closed when the balancing of the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by the open meeting law dictates the need for absolute confidentiality. The need for absolute confidentiality should relate to litigation strategy, and will usually arise only after a substantive decision on the underlying matter has been made. This privilege may not be abused to suppress public observations of the decision-making process, and does not include situations where the council will be receiving general legal opinions and advice on the strengths and weaknesses of a proposed action that may give rise to future litigation. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 131.01, subd. 3. See The Free Press v. Coaaty of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that a general statement that a meeting was being closed under the attorney-client privilege to discuss "pending litigation" did not satisfy the requirement of describing the subject to be discussed). Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(c). Vik v. Wild Rice Watershed Dist, No. A09- 1841 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (unpublished opinion). Minn. Stat. § 131.05, subd. 3(c). (PAD 08-001 (advising that a public body cannot authorize the release of a tape of a closed meeting under this exception until all property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold or the public body has abandoned the purchase or sale). Minn. Stat. § 131.05, subd. 3(d). The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. • The council should also describe how a balancing of the purposes of the attorney-client privilege against the purposes of the open meeting law demonstrates the need for absolute confidentiality. • The council must actually communicate with its attorney at the meeting. d. Purchase or sale of property A public body may close a meeting to: • Determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the public body. • Review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data. • Develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting, describe the subject to be discussed, and identify the particular property that is the subject of the meeting. • The meeting must be tape-recorded and the property must be identified on the tape. The recording must be preserved for eight years, and must be made available to the public after all property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold or after the public body has abandoned the purchase or sale. • A List of councilmembers and all other persons present at the closed meeting must be made available to the public after the closed meeting. • The actual purchase or sale of the property must be approved at an open meeting, and the purchase or sale price is public data. e. Security reports A meeting may be closed to receive security briefing and reports, to discuss issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency -response procedures and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure, and facilities—if disclosure of the information would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses. Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed, and all related financial decisions must be made at an open meeting. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn, Stat. § 13D.05, subd, 3(d). Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(b), Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(4). IPAD 03-020. IPAD 14-004. IPAD 10-001. Minn. Stat, § 13.43. Minn. Stat. § 13D,01, subd, 3. Minn. Stat, § 13D,05, subd, I. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed. • When describing the subject to be discussed, the council must refer to the facilities, systems, procedures, services or infrastructure to be considered during the closed meeting. • The closed meeting must be tape-recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least four years. 2. Meetings that must be closed There are some meetings that the open meeting law requires to be closed. The following meetings must be closed: a. Misconduct allegations A public body must close a meeting for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the public body's authority. The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has advised that a city could not close a meeting under this exception to consider allegations of misconduct against ajob applicant who had been extended a conditional offer of employment. (The job applicant was not a city employee.) The commissioner reasoned that the city council had no authority to discipline the job applicant or to direct his actions in any way; therefore, he was not "an individual subject to its authority." The commissioner has also advised that a tape recording of a closed meeting for preliminary consideration of misconduct allegations is private personnel data under Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4, and is accessible to the subject of the data but not to the public. The commissioner noted that at some point in time, some or all of the data on the tape may become public under Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2. For example, if the employee is disciplined and there is a final disposition, certain personnel data becomes public. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed. League of Minnesota Cities Information Menlo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: Note: There is a special provision dealing with allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct; see II -F -2-b. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(a). Minn. Stat. § 13.32. Minn. Stat. § 13.3805, subd. I. Minn. Stat. § 13.384. Minn, Stat. § 13.46, subd. 2 or 7. Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291- 144.298. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.1. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subds. I (a), 2(a). See section II- F - b. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(a). Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd, 11. • The meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. Thus, the individual should be given advance notice of the existence and nature of the charges against him or her, so that the individual can make a decision. • The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. • If the public body decides that discipline of any nature may be warranted regarding the specific charges, further meetings must be open. b. Certain not -public data The general rule is that meetings cannot be closed to discuss data that are not public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. A meeting must be closed, however, if the following not -public data is discussed: • Data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults. • Internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct or active law enforcement investigative data. • Educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data or mental health data that are not -public data. • Certain medical records. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this exception: • The council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed. • The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. G. Common issues This section provides an overview of some of the common issues cities consider while attempting to comply with the open meeting law. 1. Data practices Generally, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that is not public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). However, the public body must close any part of a meeting at which certain types of not -public data are discussed. If not -public data is discussed at an open meeting when the meeting is required to be closed, it is a violation of the open meeting law. Discussions of some types of not -public data may also be a violation of the MGDPA. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat, § 131.05, subd. 1(b). Minn. Stat. § 131105, subd. 1(c). Channel 10, Inc. v. /ndep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 215 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1974). See section 11-G —6- Serial meetings. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, No. C1-96- 100036 (Fifth Jud. Dist. 1996). Mankato Free Press v. City of North Monkato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). A4arkato Free Press v. City of Nord Mankato. No. C9-98- 677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished decision). However, not -public data may generally be discussed at an open meeting without liability or penalty if both of the following criteria are met: The disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority. The disclosure is necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Data that is discussed at an open meeting retains its original classification under the MGDPA. However, a record of the meeting is public, regardless of the form. It is suggested that not -public data that is discussed at an open meeting not be specifically detailed in the minutes. 2. Interviews The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a school board must interview prospective employees for administrative positions in open sessions. The court said that the absence of a statutory exception to the open meeting law for interviews indicated that the legislature had decided that such sessions should not be closed. The reasoning would seem to apply to city council interviews of prospective officers and employees as well, if a quorum is present. In 1996, a district court found that it was not a violation of the open meeting law for candidates to be serially interviewed by members of a city council in one-on-one closed interviews. In this case, five city councilmembers were present in the same building but each was conducting separate interviews in five different rooms. Because there was no quorum present in any of the rooms, the court found there was no meeting. The decision, however, was appealed. In 1997, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case back to the district court for a factual determination on whether the city used the one-on-one interview process in order to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. On remand, the district court found that the private interviews were not conducted for the purpose of avoiding public hearings. The case was again appealed. In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The conclusion that can be drawn from this decision appears to be that if serial meetings involving less than a quorum of a public body are held for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting law, it will constitute a violation of the law. Cities that are considering holding private interviews with job applicants should first consult their city attorney. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op. 63-A-5 (June 13, 1957). See also Minn. Stat. § 13 D.01, subd. 1(b) (4). St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). IPAD 05-014. IPAD 07-025. 3. Executive sessions The attorney general has advised that executive sessions of a city council must be open to the public. 4. Informational meetings and committees The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about school -board business, which the entire board attends, must be noticed and open to the public. As a result, it appears that any scheduled gathering of a quorum of a city council must be properly noticed and open to the public, regardless of whether the council takes or contemplates taking action at that gathering. This includes meetings where members receive information that may influence later decisions. Many city councils create committees to make recommendations regarding a specific issue. Commonly, such a committee will be responsible for researching the issue and submitting a recommendation to the council for its approval. These committees are usually advisory, and the council is still responsible for making the final decision. This type of committee may be subject to the open meeting law. Some factors that may be relevant in deciding whether a committee is subject to the open meeting law include how the committee was created and who are its members; whether the committee is performing an ongoing function, or instead, is performing a one-time function; and what duties and powers have been granted to the committee. For example, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has advised that "standing" committees of a city hospital board that were responsible for management liaison, collection of information, and formulation of issues and recommendations for the board were committees subject to the open meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the standing committees were performing tasks that relate to the ongoing operation of the hospital district and were not performing a one time or "ad hoc" function. In contrast, the commissioner has advised that a city's Free Speech Working Group consisting of members, including city officials, that the city council appointed to develop and review strategies for addressing free -speech concerns relating to a political convention that was going to be held in the city was not subject to the open meeting law. The commissioner primarily based this decision on the fact that the committee did not have decision- making authority. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 17 RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). See also Minnesota Daily v. Univ. of Minn., 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). Thum v. Kroschel, 506 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 fluty. Sch., 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). Hubbard Broadcasting. Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982). City councils routinely appoint individual councilmembers to act as liaisons between the council and particular committees. These types of groups may be subject to the open meeting law and a notice of a committee meeting may be required. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where the mayor and one other member of a city council attended a series of mediation sessions regarding an annexation dispute that were not open to the public. The court of appeals held that the open meeting law did not apply to these meetings concluding "that a gathering of public officials is not a `committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission' subject to the open meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers of the governing body." The court of appeals also noted that the capacity to act on behalf of the governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a quorum of the body and could also arise where there has been a delegation of power from the governing body to the group. In addition, a separate notice for a special city council meeting may also be required if a quorum of the council will be present at the meeting and will participate in the discussion. For example, when a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the city's planning commission, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open meeting law, not because of the councilmembers' attendance at the meeting, but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. Based on that decision, the attorney general has advised that mere attendance by additional councilmembers at a meeting of a council committee held in compliance with the open meeting law would not constitute a special city council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general warned, however, that the additional councilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate notice of a special city council meeting. 5. Chance or social gatherings Chance or social gathering of city councilmembers will not be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting law as long as there is not a quorum present, or, if a quorum is present, as long as the quorum does not discuss, decide, or receive information about official city business. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a conversation between two councilmembers over lunch regarding an application for a special -use permit did not violate the open meeting law because a quorum was not present. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 18 RELEVANT LINKS: Moberg v. lndep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). See also IPAD 10-011 and IPAD 06-017. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, No. C9-98- 677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished decision). Compare St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983) and A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, 1975). A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, 1975). Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). 6. Serial meetings The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a quorum of the public body held serially to avoid public hearings or to fashion agreement on an issue may violate the open meeting law depending on the circumstances. A Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision also indicates that serial meetings could violate the open meeting law. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual councilmembers conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a city position in one-on-one closed interviews. Although the district court found that no meetings had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present, the court of appeals remanded the decision back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had used this interview process for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting law. On remand, the district court found that the private interviews were not conducted for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting law. This decision was also appealed, and the court of appeals, in an unpublished decision, agreed with the district court's decision. A city that wants to hold private interviews with applicants for city employment should first consult with its city attorney. 7. Training sessions Whether the participation of a quorum or more of councilmembers in a training program should be considered a meeting under the open meeting law would likely depend on whether the program includes a discussion of general training information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual city. The attorney general has advised that a city council's participation in a non- public training program devoted to developing skills is not covered by the open meeting law. However, the opinion also stated that if there were to be any discussions of city business by the attending members, either outside or during the training session, it could be seen as a violation of the open meeting law. 8. Telephone, email, and social media It is possible that communication through telephone calls, email, or other technology could violate the open meeting law. The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone calls could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 19 RELEVANT LINKS: !PAD 09-020. O'Keefe v. Cater, No. Al2- 0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished decision). The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has advised that back -and -forth email communications among a quorum of a public body in which official business was discussed violated the open meeting law. However, the opinion also advised that "one-way communication between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as when the chair or a staff sends meeting materials via email to all board members, as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues." In contrast, an unpublished 2012 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting law because they are written communications and are not a "meeting" for purposes of the open meeting law. The decision also concluded that even if the email messages were subject to the open meeting law, the substance of the emails in question did not contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited "meeting" to have occurred. The decision noted that the substance of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead, it related to a relatively straightforward operational matter. The decision also noted that the town board members did not appear to make any decisions in their email messages. Because this decision is unpublished, it is not binding on other courts. In addition, the outcome of this decision might have been different if the substance of the emails had related to something other than operational matters, for example, if the substance of the emails were attempting to build agreement on a particular issue that was going to be presented to the town board at a future meeting. In 2014, the open meeting law was amended to provide that "the use of social media by members of a public body does not violate the open meeting law as long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public." Email is not considered a type of social media under the new law. The open meeting law does not define the term "social media," but this term is generally understood to mean forms of electronic communication including websites for social networking like Facebook, Linkedln, and MySpace as well as blogs and microblogs like Twitter through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, and other content. It is important to remember that the use of social media by city councilmembers could still be used to support other claims such as claims of defamation or of conflict of interest or bias in decision-making. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 20 RELEVANT LINKS: Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Disr. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). See Section 11.- G.-6. Serial meetings. Minn. Stat, § 13.02, subd. 7. See Handbook for Minnesota Cities, Chapter 27 for more information about records management. As a result, councilmembers should make sure that any comments they make on social media are factually correct, and they should not comment on issues that will come before the council in the future for a quasi-judicial decision, such as the consideration of whether to grant an application for a conditional use permit. It is also important to remember that serial discussions between less than a quorum of a public body that is subject to the open meeting law could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Therefore, city councils and other groups to which the open meeting law applies should take a conservative approach and avoid using letters, telephone conversations, email, and other such technology if the following circumstances exist: • A quorum of the council will be contacted regarding the same matter. • City business is being discussed. Another thing councilmembers should be careful about is which email account they use to receive emails relating to city business because such emails would likely be considered government data that is subject to a public -records request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). The best option would be for each councilmember to have an individual email account that the city provides and city staff manage. However, this is not always possible for cities due to budget, size, or logistics. If councilmembers don't have a city email account, there are some things to think about before using a personal email account for city business. First, preferably only the councilmember should have access to the personal email account. Using a shared account with other family members could lead to information being inadvertently deleted. Also, since city emails are government data, city officials may have to separate personal emails from city emails when responding to a public -records request. Second, if the account a city councilmember wants to use for city business is tied to a private employer, that private employer may have a policy that restricts this kind of use. Even if a private employer allows this type of use, it is important to be aware that in the event of a public -records request under the MGDPA, or a discovery request in litigation, the private employer may be compelled to have a search done of a councilmembers' email communication on the private employer's equipment or to restore files from a backup or archive. What may work best is to use a free, third -party email service, such as gmail or Hotmail, for your city account and to avoid using that email account for any personal email or for anything that may constitute an official record of city business since such records must be retained in accordance with the state records retention requirements. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 21 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subd. I(b). See IPAD for an index of advisory opinions by topic. See Requesting an Open Meeting Law Advisory Opinion from IPAD Minn. Stat. § 8.07. See index of Attorney General Advisory opinions from 1993 to present. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 2. O'Keefe v. Carter. No. Al2- 0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished decision). Minn. Stat. § 541.07 (2). Minn. Stat. § 131706, subds. 1, 4. Minn. Stat. § 1311706, subd. 4. See LMCIT risk management memo, Defense Cosi Reimbursement Coverage For Open Meeting Law and Bankruptcy Lawsuits, for information about insurance coverage for lawsuits under the open meeting law. H. Advisory opinions 1. Department of Administration The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has authority to issue non-binding advisory opinions on certain issues related to the open meeting law. A $200 fee is required. The Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) of the Department of Administration handles these requests. A public body subject to the open meeting law can request an advisory opinion from the commissioner. A person who disagrees with the manner in which members of a governing body perform their duties under the open meeting law can also request an advisory opinion. 2. Minnesota Attorney General The Minnesota Attorney General is authorized to issue written advisory opinions to city attorneys on "questions of public importance." The Attorney General has issued several advisory opinions on the open meeting law. 1. Penalties An action to enforce the open meeting law may be brought by any person in any court of competent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the governing body is located. In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals concluded that this broad grant of jurisdiction authorized a member of a town board to bring an action against his own town board for alleged violations of the open meeting law. This same decision also concluded that a two-year statute of limitations applies to lawsuits under the open meeting law. A councilmember who intentionally violates the open meeting law can be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty of up to $300. The city may not pay this penalty. A court may take into account a councilmember's time and experience in office to determine the amount of the penalty. In addition, a court may award reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney fees of up to $13,000 to the person who brought the violation to court. The court may award costs and attorney fees to a city only if the action is found to be frivolous and without merit. A city may pay for any costs, disbursements, and attorney fees awarded. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 22 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. 131.06, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 131.06, subd. 4 (d). Coalwell v. Murray, No. C6-95-2436 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 1996) (unpublished decision). Elseth n. Hine, No. Al2-1496 (Minn. Ct. App. May 13, 2013) (unpublished opinion). Minn. Stat. § 131.06, subd. 3. Claude v. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). Brown v. Cannon Falls Township, 723 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). Minn. Stat. § 1319.06, subd. 3 (b) and (c). Ouast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967). Sullivan V. Credit River Township, 217 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1974). In re D & A Truck Line, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 0. App. 1994). Lac Qui Rade-Yellow Bank Watershed Dist. v. Wollschlager, No. 06-96- 1023 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 1996) (unpublished decision). IPAD 11-004. If a plaintiff prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law, an award of reasonable attorney fees is mandatory if the court determines the public body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the commissioner of the Department of Administration, and the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the public body did not act in conformity with the opinion. A court is required to give deference to the advisory opinion in a lawsuit brought to determine whether the open meeting law was violated. No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member of a public body unless the court finds there was intent to violate the open meeting law. If a person is found to have intentionally violated this chapter in three or more separate actions, the person must be removed from office and may not serve in any other capacity with that public body for a period of time equal to the term of office the person was serving. If a court finds a separate, third violation that is unrelated to the previous violations, it must declare the position vacant and notify the appointing authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable, the appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case of any other vacancy. The open meeting law does not address whether actions taken at an improper meeting would be invalid. The Minnesota Supreme Court once held that an attempted school district consolidation was fatally defective when the initiating resolution was adopted at a meeting that was not open to the public. However, in more recent decisions, Minnesota courts have refused to invalidate actions taken at improperly closed meetings. The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that the open meeting law "does not specify that actions taken at a meeting which is not public shall be invalid." 111. • procedures A. Agendas The city clerk generall .,•' :':res an agen.a ": ncil meetings. The agenda is the !' "` to councilmembers and other in , . individuals suc " ,artment heads and citizens. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: Meetings of City Councils Page 23 11/14/2014 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INFORMATION MEMO Official Conflict of Interest Learn responsibilities of city officials to avoid prohibited personal or financial benefits in contracts, which public offices may not be held simultaneously by the same person, need to disclose economic interests, and limits on gifts. Links to a code of conduct and statement of values; contains resolutions for contracting with an interested council member. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Ethical responsibilities of local office in Minnesota Most Minnesotans can run for and hold elected office at the federal, state, or local level. Candidates are not required to pass a civics test, attend mandatory trainings, obtain a particular degree or certification, or otherwise demonstrate their fitness. Nevertheless, election or appointment to public office may impact one's personal and professional life–perhaps quite significantly. Some of the most important regulations impacting local governments address the ethical responsibilities of public office–laws that can apply to both elected and appointed city officials. Such safeguards exist to: • Ensure integrity in government. • Protect the city's and/or the city residents' interests. • Limit the opportunity for officials to benefit (personally or financially) from public office. Unfortunately, such regulations are also some of the most misunderstood. City officials—particularly those new to their positions—need to be aware of their responsibilities and the types of prohibited conduct. Various regulations: • Limit an official's ability to act independently. • Provide the public access to the decision-making process. • Prohibit public officials from accepting gifts. • Prohibit conflicts of interest. • Prohibit officials from holding incompatible offices. • Require public officials to disclose conflicts or economic interests when they do arise. This memo examines the ethical responsibilities of local office in Minnesota. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attomey for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 www.lmc.org 10/17/2014 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2014 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: Minn_ Const. art. Xll, § 3. Minn. Sta la(2). 414.01, subd. Handbook, Chapter 3. Handbook, Chapter 4. Minn. Stat. ch. 412. Minn. Stat. ch. 410. While this memo focuses on the general principles behind these various regulations and prohibitions, remember that ethical questions can be difficult to answer. Not all situations fit neatly into current guidelines, so conduct may not clearly be prohibited, but still seems inappropriate. This appearance of impropriety can be very damaging to a councilmember's image (as well as the city's reputation) and may need to be considered. 11. City government in Minnesota The Minnesota Constitution authorizes the Minnesota Legislature to provide for the "creation, organization, administration, consolidation, division, and dissolution of local government units and their functions, for the change of boundaries thereof, [and] for their elective and appointive officers," The form and function of city government, and the powers, duties and limitations of elected and appointed office, help shape our basic ethical responsibilities. A. Form and function Under Minnesota law, cities are public corporations. The Legislature has described cities as the type of government that "most efficiently provides governmental services in areas intensively developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental purposes." About 82 percent of the people in Minnesota live in cities, even though cities only cover about 4.9 percent of the state's land area. Since cities are where most people live, the basic goal of city government is to provide services. In many parts of the state, cities are the main governmental entities. Minnesota has two basic types of cities: statutory cities and home rule charter cities. The major difference between the two is the type of enabling legislation under which they are incorporated: • Statutory cities derive many of their powers from Chapter 412 of the Minnesota statutes. • Home rule charter cities obtain their powers from a home rule charter. Statutory and home rule charter cities differ in terms of organization and powers, not because of any classification of population, area, geographical location, or other physical features. B. City council The cornerstone of city government in Minnesota is the elected city council. The council fashions the policies that determine a community's present and future well-being. Because people look to their local government for leadership, much of the responsibility for community development falls on the shoulders of city councilmembers. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: Handbook, Chapter 6. Minn. Stat. § 412 191, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 412. 191, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 412.111. Minn. Stat. § 412.201. Minn. Stat. § 412.241. Minn. Stat. § 412.111. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 32. Van Cleve v. Wallace, 216 Minn. 500, 13 N. W.2d 467 (1944). Minn. Stat. § 10A.071, subd. 1(b). Minn. Stat § 471.895. Minn. Stat. § 471.895, subd. 1(d). The major areas of council authority and responsibility include: • Judging the qualifications and election of its own members. • Setting and interpreting rules of procedure. • Legislating for the city. • Enforcing city ordinances. • Appointing administrative personnel. • Transacting city business. • Managing city finances. • Making appointments to boards, commissions, and committees. • Protecting the welfare of the city and its inhabitants. • Providing community leadership. The city council is a continuing body. New members have no effect on the body except to change its membership. This means that all ordinances and resolutions remain in effect until the council alters or rescinds them, or until they expire through their own terms. At any time, the council can change any resolution, ordinance or administrative order whether or not the individuals presently on the council are the same as those serving when the council originally took action. Councilmembers' statutory duties are to be performed, almost without exception, by the council as a whole. For example, it is the council, and not individual councilmembers, that must supervise administrative officers, formulate policies, and exercise city powers. III. Gifts A "gift" is defined as money, property (real or personal), a service, a loan, the forbearance or forgiveness of debt, or a promise of future employment, given and received without the giver receiving something of equal or greater value in return. A. General prohibition Elected and appointed "local officials" may not generally receive a gift from any "interested persons." 1. Local officials A "local official" is any elected or appointed official of a city, or of an agency, authority, or instrumentality of a city. The gift prohibition clearly applies to the members of the city council. However, since the term "local official" is not further defined, it is not known if the law is meant to cover all city employees, or just certain high-level employees (such as city managers or administrators) and other appointed officials. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Oficial Conflict of Interest Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn Stat. § 471 895, subd. 1(c). Minn. Stat § 471.895, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 21 A.O1, subd. 5. As so many individuals can be involved in the decision-making process, trying to distinguish between city "employees" and "officials" is quite difficult. As a consequence, the safest course of action is to assume the law applies to all employees, regardless of their title or job responsibilities. 2. Interested persons An "interested person" is a person or representative of a person or association that has a direct financial interest in a decision that a local official is authorized to make. An interested person likely includes anyone who may provide goods or services to a city such as engineers, attorneys, financial advisers, contractors, and salespersons. But, virtually every resident or person doing business in the city could have a direct financial interested in a decision that an official is authorized to make. These may include: • Property tax levies. • Special assessments. • Licenses and permits. • Land use decisions. If an individual could have a direct financial interest in a decision or recommendation that a city official would be authorized to make, he or she might be considered an interested person for purposes of the gift law. B. Exceptions The following types of gifts are permitted under exceptions to the gift law: • Lawful campaign contributions. • Services to assist an official in the performance of official duties. Such services can include (but are not limited to) providing advice, consultation, information, and communication in connection with legislation and services to constituents. • Services of insignificant monetary value. • A plaque or similar memento. Such items are permitted when given in recognition of individual services in a field of specialty or to a charitable cause. • A trinket or memento costing $5 or less. • Informational material of unexceptional value. • Food or beverage given at a reception, meal or meeting. This exception only applies if the recipient is making a speech or answering questions as part of a program that is located away from the recipient's place of work. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Oficial Conflict of Interest Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. y}' 465.03. Kelly v. Campaign Finame and Public Disclosure Board, 679 N. W.2d 178 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), rev. denied(Minn. July 20, 2004). Minn. Stat, ch. IOA. Section VII, Ethics in Government Act. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board: Lobbyist Gift Ban. Minn. R. 7515.0620. • Gifts between family members. However, the gift may not be given on behalf of someone who is not a member of the family. • Gift because of the recipient's membership in a group. The majority of this group's members must not be local officials and an equivalent gift must be given or offered to the other group members. • Food or beverages given to national or multi -state conference attendees. The majority of dues paid to the organization must be paid from public funds and an equivalent gift must be given or offered to all other attendees. C. Gifts to cities The law prohibits gifts to city officials, not to cities themselves. Cities may accept gifts of real or personal property and use them in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. A resolution accepting the gift and the donor's terms must receive an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the council. A city may not, however, accept gifts for religious or sectarian purposes. D. Metro area cities over 50,000 Metropolitan cities with a population over 50,000 are subject to additional regulations. Under the Ethics in Government Act, local officials in these cities are also prohibited from receiving gifts from "lobbyists," though there are similar exceptions that may apply. The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board issues advisory opinions regarding the lobbyist gift ban. These opinions may be relevant to any Minnesota city struggling with the application or implication of a gift ban to a particular situation. E. Municipal liquor stores Municipal liquor store employees may not suggest, request, demand, or accept any gratuity, reward, or promise thereof from any representative of a manufacturer or wholesaler of alcoholic beverages. Any manager or employee who violates this provision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. IV. Conflicts of interest There are two broad categories of conflicts of interest that city officials and municipal bodies may encounter: those involving contractual decisions, and those involving non -contractual decisions. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.87. A.G. Op. 470 (June 9, 1967). A.G. Op. 90-E-5 (Nov. 13, 1969). A.G. Op. 90e-6 (June 15, 1988). A.G. Op. 90e-6 (June 15, 1988). Minn. Stat. § 412.311. Section IV -A-2, Exceptions and procedures. Singewald c. Minneapolis Gas Co., 274 Minn. 556, 142 N.W.2d 739 (1966). A.G. Op. 90a-1 (Oct. 7, 1976). Handbook, Chapter 4. Minn. Stat. § 471.881. A. Contracts 1. General prohibition Public officers are generally prohibited from having a personal financial interest in a sale, lease or contract they are authorized to make in their official capacity. The term "public officer" certainly includes mayors, councilmembers, or other elected officials. It may also include appointed officers and employees who are able to influence the decision-making process. The attorney general has advised that the conflict of interest law applies to any councilmember "who is authorized to take part in any manner" in the making of the contract. Simply abstaining from voting on the contract is not sufficient. The attorney general reasoned that if the Legislature had only wanted to prohibit interested officers from voting on the contract, it would not have used the word "authorized." A literal reading of the statute might suggest that it only applies to city officers who enter into contracts on behalf of the city. However, the attorney general has given the statute a broader interpretation, which could affect more officials than just those who are directly involved in the decision-making process. As a result, it may be wise to take a conservative approach regarding contracts with any city official. a. Statutory cities Statutory cities must consider an additional restriction. No member of a statutory city council may have a direct or indirect interest in any contract the council makes (notwithstanding the limited exceptions discussed below). This restriction may affect some contractual situations that are not covered by the general prohibition. For example, even though the actual contract is not made with a councilmember, the fact that he or she has an indirect interest in it could be an issue. b. Home rule charter cities Many home rule charters contain provisions that address conflicts of interest in contracts as well. Some charters go beyond the statute to prevent all city officers and employees from having an interest in a city contract, whether or not the individual has a role in the process. Because charter provisions vary from city to city, they are not covered in this memo in any detail. However, the exceptions discussed below apply to all cities, regardless of any other statute or city charter provision to the contrary. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.88. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 1. 1989 Street Improvement Program v. Denmark Township, 483 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. ch. 118A. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 331 A.04. 2. Exceptions and procedures There are several important exceptions that apply to all cities. In these circumstances, a city may move forward with the matter if the interested officer discloses his or her interest at the earliest stage and abstains from voting or deliberating on any contract in which he or she has an interest. Generally, an exception may only be used by a city when approved by unanimous vote of the remaining councilmembers. There are also additional requirements for some of the exceptions that are discussed below. A 1992 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals suggests that interested officers should abstain from voting even when not expressly required to do so under the law. In that case, a township was challenged because an improvement project had not received the required four-fifths majority vote of the town board (two members whose properties would be assessed abstained). The court said the two interested board members were correct to abstain since their interests disqualified them from voting. As a result, the remaining three board members' unanimous vote was sufficient. A city council may enter into the following contracts if the proper procedure is followed, even though the contract may impact the interests of one of its officers. a. Bank or savings association The city council may designate a bank or savings association that a city officer has an interest in as an authorized depository for public funds and as a source of borrowing. No restriction applies to the designation of a depository or the deposit of public funds if the funds are protected in accordance with state law. Procedure: • The officer discloses his or her interest in the bank or savings association (this should occur when the bank or savings association is first designated or when the official is first elected or appointed, whichever is later). The disclosure is recorded in the meeting minutes and serves as notice of such interest for each successive transaction. • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the designation by unanimous vote. b. Official newspaper The city council may designate as the official newspaper (or publish official matters in) a newspaper in which a city officer has an interest. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC information memo, Newspaper Publication. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 5. Minn. Stat. § 471.345. Minn. Stat. § 412.311, Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 5. LMC information memo, Competitive Bidding Requirements in Cities. Minn. Stat. § 471.89, subd. 2. Appendix A. Minn. Stat. § 471.89, subd. 3. Appendix C. However, this exception only applies if the interested officer's newspaper is the only qualified newspaper available. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the designation by unanimous vote. c. Cooperative association A city may enter into a contract with a cooperative association of which the city officer is a shareholder or stockholder. This exception does not apply if the interested city officer is an officer or manager of the association. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the designation by unanimous vote. d. Competitive bidding not required A city may contract with a city officer when competitive bidding laws is not required. The municipal contracting act generally requires the following types of contracts that are estimated to exceed $100,000 to be bid: • Sale, purchase, or rental of supplies, materials, or equipment. • Construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of property. This exception appears to apply to contracts that do not have to be competitively bid, such as contracts for professional services or employment. A city may need to seek a legal opinion if it is unsure about whether this exception applies to a particular situation. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the contract by unanimous vote. • The council passes a resolution setting out the essential facts, such as the nature of the officer's interest and the item or service to be provided, and stating that the contract price is as low as (or lower then) could be found elsewhere. • Before a claim is paid, the interested officer must file an affidavit with the clerk that contains: o The name and office of the interested officer. o An itemization of the commodity or services furnished. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/1712014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.89, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 365.37. Minn. Stat. § 415.01. Appendix 13. Handbook, Chapter 23. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd, 6. A.G. Op. 358-E-4 (Jan. 19, 1965). A.G. Op. 90-E (Apr. 17, 1973). Section V, Compatibility of offices. Minn_ Stat. § 471.88, subd. 6a. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 7. o The contract price. o The reasonable value. o The interest of the officer in the contract. o A declaration that the contract price is as low as or lower than could be obtained from other sources. • In an emergency where the contract cannot be authorized in advance, payment must be authorized by resolution describing the emergency. e. Volunteer fire department Cities may contract with a volunteer fire department for the payment of compensation or retirement benefits to its members. There is some question as to whether this exception applies to both municipal and independently operated fire departments. A literal reading of the statute suggests it applies only to actual contracts. Since cities do not usually contract with a municipal fire department, there is a possibility this exception may only apply to contracts with independent fire departments. However, the attorney general has issued opinions that imply that the exception can apply to both kinds of fire departments. A councilmember who is interested in serving the city in multiple positions, for example, plowing streets or serving on the volunteer fire department, should also consider whether the functions and responsibilities of those positions are compatible. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the contract by unanimous vote. f. Volunteer ambulance service Cities may contract with a volunteer ambulance service for the payment of compensation or retirement benefits to its members. This provision is similar to the volunteer fire department exception. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the contract by unanimous vote. g. Municipal band Cities may contract with a municipal band for the payment of compensation to its members. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subds. 9, 10. Section V1I-C-2-d, HRAs and EDAs. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. I I. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 12. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 13. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the contract by unanimous vote. h. EDAs and port authorities An economic development authority (EDA), port authority, or seaway port authority may contract with firms engaged in the business of importing, exporting, or general trade that employ one of its commissioners. Procedure: • The interested commissioner abstains from voting on the matter. • The authority approves the contract by unanimous vote. • The commissioner does not take part in the determination (except to testify) and abstains from any vote that set any rates affecting shippers or users of the terminal facility. 1. Bank loans or trust services Banks that employ a public housing, port authority, or EDA commissioner may provide loans or trust services to property affected by that authority. Procedure: • The commissioner discloses the nature of those loans or trust services of which he or she has personal knowledge. • The disclosure is recorded in the meeting minutes. • The interested commissioner abstains from voting on the matter. • The authority approves the contract by unanimous vote. Construction materials or services (cities with a population of 1,000 or less) A city with a population of 1,000 or less (according to the last federal census) may contract with one of its officers for construction materials and/or services through a sealed bid process. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the contact. • The council approves the contract by unanimous vote. k. Rent: Cities may rent space in a public facility to a public officer at a rate equal to that paid by other members of the public. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 14, Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 15. Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 17. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The council approves the contract by unanimous vote. I. Local development organizations City officers may apply for a loan or grant administered by a local development organization. A "local development organization" is defined to include housing and redevelopment authorities (HRAs), EDAs, community action programs, port authorities, and private consultants. Procedure: • The interested officer discloses that he or she has applied for a grant. • That interest is recorded in the official minutes. • The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. • The local development organization approves the application by unanimous vote. m. Franchise agreements When a city enters into a franchise agreement or contract for utility services to the city, a councilmember who is an employee of the utility may continue to serve on the council during the term of the franchise or contract. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on any franchise matters. • The reason for the interested councilmember's abstention is recorded in the meeting minutes. • The council approves the franchise agreement by unanimous vote. n. State or federal grant programs Cities may apply for and accept state or federal grants (housing, community, or economic development) which may benefit a public officer. Procedure: • The interested officer abstains from voting on matters related to the grant. • The governing body accepts the grant by unanimous vote. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.83, subd. 18. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 19. A.G. Op. 90a -I (Apr. 14, 1960). A.G. Op. 90-E-5 (Aug. 30, 1949). A.G. Op. 90e -I (May 12, 1976). Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 5. A.G. Op. 90a -I (May 16, 1952). A.G. Op. 90b (Aug. 8, 1969). o. Loans or grants—St. Louis County A public officer is eligible to participate in a loan or grant program administered by the city with community development block grant funds or federal economic development administration funds. This exception is limited to cities in St. Louis County with a population 5,000 or less. Procedure: • The public officer discloses that he or she has applied for the funds. • The disclosure is recorded within the official meeting meetings. • The interested officer abstains from voting on the application. • The governing body approves the application by unanimous vote. p. HRA officer loan HRA officers may participate in a loan or grant program administered by the HRA utilizing state or federal funds. Procedure: • The public officer discloses that he or she has applied for the funds. • The disclosure is recorded within the official meeting meetings. • The public officer must abstain from voting on the application. • The governing body approves the application by unanimous vote. 3. Application The statutes apply to all kinds of contracts (formal or informal, written or unwritten) for goods and services. The statute applies not only when the city is the buyer, but also when the city is the seller. The law would appear to prohibit a contract with a public official who has had the opportunity to influence the terms of the contract or the decision of the governing body. Even when a contract is allowed under one of the exceptions (such as for contracts for which bids are not required by law) councils should proceed with caution. a. Business interests and employment The attorney general has advised that a councilmember who holds stock in a corporation that contracts with the city has an unlawful interest and that a councilmember who is a subcontractor on a contract has an unlawful interest. The attorney general has also advised that a member of a governing body that receives a percentage of the money earned by a construction company for jobs done under a contract with it has an unlawful interest. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: Singewalat v. Minneapolis Gas Co.. 274 Minn. 556, 142 N.W.2d 739 (1966). A.G. Op. 90-E-5 (Nov. 13, 1969). A.G. Op. 90a -I (Oct. 7, 1976). A.G. Op. 90e -I (May 12, 1976). A.G. Op. 90E-1 (Dec. 6, 1955). A.G. Op. 90a -I (Mar. 30, 1961). A.G. Op.90a-1 (Apr. 15, 1975). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that employment by a company the city contracts with may give a councilmember an indirect interest in the contract. On the other hand, the attorney general has advised that if a councilmember is an employee of the contracting firm and his or her salary is not affected by the contract, the council may determine that no personal financial interest exists. The attorney general has said that factors other than employment may have to be considered to determine whether a prohibited interest is present. The attorney general concluded that a council may contract with the employer if: • The councilmember has no ownership interest in the firm. • The councilmember is neither an officer nor a director. • The councilmember is compensated with a salary or on an hourly wage basis and receives no commissions, bonus or other remuneration. • The councilmember is not involved in supervising the performance of the contract for the employer and has no other interest in the contract. The law prohibits making a contract with any public official who has had the opportunity to influence its terms. The attorney general has advised that a former councilmember could not be a subcontractor on a municipal hospital contract if he was a councilmember when the prime contract was awarded. Questions that are more difficult can arise when a councilmember takes office after a city has entered into a contract. The assumption of office by someone with a personal financial interest in an already existing contract raises concerns about possible conflicts of interest during the performance of the contract. In one case, the attorney general advised that a councilmember was eligible for office and entitled to commissions on insurance premiums payable by the city on an insurance contract entered into before the person became a councilmember. In an informal letter opinion, the attorney general said the director of a malting company could assume office as a councilmember even though the city had entered into a 20 -year contract with the company to allow it to use the city's sewage disposal plant. The contract also fixed rates for service subject to negotiation of new rates under certain circumstances. The attorney general said the councilmember could continue to serve as long as no new negotiations were required. However, no new agreement could be entered into as long as the interested councilmember held office. Individuals faced with a possible conflict of interests should seek legal advice. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 5. Minn. Stat. § 471.345. LMC information memo, Competitive Bidding Requirements in Cites. Minn. Stat. § 410.191. Minn. Stat. §412.02, subd. la. Section V, Compatibility of offices. "Compatibility of Offices," House Information Brief (July 2012). Letvick v. Glazier, 116 Mich. 493, 74 N.W. 717 (1898). Section IV -B, Non- contrncatal situations. Minn. Stat. § 519.05. Minn. Stat. § 412.311. A.G. Op. (June 28, 1928). A.G. Op. 90-C-5 (July 30, 1940). A.G. Op. 90-b (Apr. 5, 1955). A.G. Op. (Dec. 9, 1976) (informal letter opinion). b. Elected officials and city employment The League is often asked if an elected city official can also be employed by the city. There is an exception to the conflict of interest law that allows a contract to be made with an interested official if the contract is not required to be competitively bid. This exception appears to permit a city to hire an elected official as an employee, since contracts for professional services and employment are not required to be competitively bid. However, there are several issues that must be considered to determine whether this is permissible in any specific situation. (1) Full-time employment Neither the mayor nor any city councilmember may also be a "full-time, permanent" city employee. Full-time, permanent employment is defined by the city's employment policy. (2) Part-time employment For part-time employment, it must be determined if the two positions are incompatible. If the positions are incompatible, an individual may not serve in both positions at the same time. c. Contracts with family members The conflict of interest laws do not directly address conflicts that may arise out of family relationships. The courts of other states generally have held that family relationship alone has no disqualifying effect on the making of a contract. There must generally be proof that a councilmember has a financial interest in the contract. Non -contractual situations are similar. Under existing law, spouses are responsible for each other's necessities. A contract with the councilmember's spouse in a statutory city may violate the law if the councilmember has a direct or indirect interest in it. The attorney general has construed the law broadly to hold such contracts invalid. If the money earned under the contract is used to support the family, the councilmember derives some benefit. In this type of situation, the attorney general has held that there is an indirect interest in the contract. However, in more recent opinions, the attorney general has taken the position that each case turns on its individual facts. If a spouse who contracts with the city uses the earnings from the contract individually and not to support the family, the contract probably would not be invalid simply because the spouse is a councilmember. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2, Minn. Stat. § 15.054. Minn. Stat. § 15.054. A.G. Op. 469a-12 (Aug. 30, 1961). A.G. Op. 90 -a -I (Sept. 28, 1955). Minn. Stat. § 471.87. Minn. Stat. § 609.43. A.G. Op. 90a -I (Apr. 22, 1971). City of Chaska v. Redman, 53 Minn. 525,55 N.W. 737 (1893). Currie v. Sch. Dist. No. 26, 35 Minn. 163,27 N.W. 922 (1886). Qjelland v. City of Mankato, 112 Minn. 24, 127 N.W. 397 (1910). However, if the facts tend to show otherwise, the legality of the contract may be in doubt. In short, the mere fact of the relationship does not affect the validity of the contract. While it is easier to find that a councilmember has a personal financial interest in a contract involving his or her spouse, a marital relationship alone may not make the contract invalid. The Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based upon marital status. Making inquiries into the marital status of employees or applicants for city positions is not recommended. d. Sale of city property Officers and employees of the state or its subdivisions are generally prohibited from selling government-owned property to another officer or employee of the state or its subdivisions. This does not apply to the sale of items acquired or produced for sale to the general public in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the law allows government employees and officers to sell public property if the sale is in the normal course of their duties. Property that is no longer needed for public purposes may be sold to an employee (but not an officer) if the following conditions are met: • There has been reasonable public notice. • The property is sold by public auction or sealed bid. • The employee who buys the property was not directly involved in the auction or sealed response process. • The employee is the highest responsible bidder. The attorney general has also concluded that cities may not contract to purchase land from or sell land to their city council members. 4. Violations A public officer who violates the conflict of interest law is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and can be fined up to $3,000 and imprisoned up to one year. Any contract made in violation of the conflict of interest law is generally void. Public officers, who knowingly authorize a prohibited contract, even though they do not receive personal benefit from it, may be subject to criminal penalties as well. When a city enters into a contract that is beyond the city's powers, there will generally be no city liability for the contract. Even when the contract is within the city's powers, any contract made in violation of the unlawful interest statutes is generally void. As a result, such a contract cannot be the basis of a lawsuit. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: Stone v. Bevans, 88 Minn. 127,92 N.W. 520(1902). City of Minneapolis v. Canterbury, 122 Minn. 301, 142 N.W. 812 (1913). Currie v. Sch. Dist. No. 26, 35 Minn. 163, 27 N.W. 922 (1886). Singewald v. :Minneapolis Gas Co, 274 Minn. 556, 142 N.W.2d 739 (1966). Stone v. Bevans, 88 Minn. 127, 92 N.W. 520 (1902). Frisch v. City of St. Charles, 167 Minn. 171, 208 N.W. 650 0926). Mares v. Janutka, 196 Minn. 87, 264 N.W. 222 (1936). Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 131 S. Ct. 2343 (2011). 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers § 246. However, a city may be legally blocked from performing an illegal contract. If a contract is invalid and does not fall under the cited exceptions, it does not matter that the interested councilmember did not vote or participate in the discussion. Likewise, it does not matter that the interested councilmember's vote was not needed for the council's approval of the contract. It is the conflict of interest that matters. Even if the councilmember acted in good faith and the contract was fair and reasonable, the contract is generally void if it is prohibited by the conflict of interest. When a prohibited contract is made with an interested councilmember, the councilmember may not recover on the contract. Nor may a councilmember recover value on the basis of an implied contract. If a councilmember has already received payment, restitution to the city can be compelled. For example, if the mayor is paid for services to the city under an illegal contract, a taxpayer could sue to recover the money for the city. It does not matter that the mayor was not present at the meeting at which the agreement for compensation was adopted. If a councilmember has made an unlawful sale of goods to the city and the goods can be returned, a court will probably order it and prohibit any payment for the goods. This might be ordered when a lot has been purchased from a councilmember and no building has been erected on it, or if supplies, such as lumber, have been bought and not yet used. However, if the goods cannot be returned and if the contract was not beyond the powers of the city and there was no fraud or collusion in the transaction, the court will determine the reasonable value of the property and permit payment on the basis of the value received. In case of doubt, it is wise to assume a city cannot contract with one of its officers. If the contract is necessary, a legal opinion or court ruling should be secured before proceeding. B. Non -contractual situations While the laws discussed previously relate only to contracts with interested officials, courts throughout the country, including the Minnesota Supreme Court, have followed similar principles in non -contractual situations. Any city official who has personal financial interest in an official non - contractual action is generally disqualified from participating in the action. This is especially true when the matter concerns the member's character, conduct, or right to hold office. Conflicts can also arise when the official's own personal interest is so distinct from the public interest that the member cannot fairly represent the public interest. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967). Gonsalves v. City of Dairy Valley, 71 Cal. Rptr. 255 (Cal. 0. App. 1968). Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 153 N.W.2d 209(1967). Township Bd. of Lake Valley Township v. Lewis, 305 Minn. 488, 234 N.W.2d 815 (1975). In general, when an act of a council is quasi-judicial, no member who has a personal interest may take part. Some would argue that the member's participation makes the decision voidable, even if his or her vote was not necessary. The bias of one councilmember could make a city council's decision arbitrary. When there is a disqualifying personal interest, the action is not necessarily void. In contrast to the rules regarding conflict of interest in contract situations, the official action may be valid if the required number of non -interested council members approved the action. 1. Disqualifying interest—factors The Minnesota Supreme Court has utilized several factors when determining whether a disqualifying interests exists: • The nature of the decision. • The nature of the financial decision. • The number of interested officials. • The need for the interested officials to make the decision. • Other means available, such as the opportunity for review. When an administrative body has a duty to act on a matter and is the only entity capable of acting, the fact that members may have had a personal interest in the result may not disqualify them from performing their duties. A very relevant factor is whether other means are available to ensure city officials will not act arbitrarily or in furtherance of self -interests. In one case, the court took into account the fact that a decision by a board of managers could be appealed to the state water resources board. In another case, the court said that the ability to appeal to the district court would adequately protect owners from any possible prejudice. 2. Common concerns a. Self -judgment On the theory that no person should be the judge of his or her own case, courts have generally held that an officer may not participate in proceedings where he or she is the subject. As a result, councilmembers are probably prohibited from judging themselves on an offense in which the majority of the council participated. Likewise, determination of a councilmember's residency may be one such issue from which an interested officer should abstain. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 17 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.46. Minn. Stat. § 415.15. A.G. Op. 471M (Oct. 30, 1986). Section V, Compatibility of offices. Minn. Stat. § 415.1 I. A.G. Op. 471-K (May 10, 1976). Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. A.G. Op. (Apr. 14, 1975) (informal letter opinion). A.G. Op. (Dec. 9, 1976) (informal letter opinion). Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. A.G. Op. 430 (Apr. 28, 1967). b. Self -appointment Generally, city officials may not appoint a councilmember to fill a vacancy in a different elected position, even if he or she resigns from their existing position before the new appointment is made. However, councilmembers may be appointed mayor or clerk, but may not vote on their appointment. For appointments to non -elective positions, the general rule is that an official has a conflict in terms of self-interest. This conflict disqualifies the official from participating in the decision to appoint him- or herself. Appointing one council member to serve in two positions simultaneously is a question of compatibility of the two offices or positions. c. Council compensation State law authorizes a council of any second, third or fourth class city in Minnesota to set its own salary and the salary of the mayor by ordinance. However, increases in salary cannot begin until after the next regular city election. Since every councilmember has a personal interest in his or her compensation, the need for interested officials to make the decision is unavoidable in this situation. A special situation is involved in setting the clerk's salary in a Standard Plan statutory city. In these cities, the clerk is elected and is thus a voting member of the council. While the other councilmembers may vote on the clerk's compensation without any disqualifying self -interests, it is probably best for the clerk not to vote on his or her own salary. d. Family connections In an informal letter opinion, the attorney general has advised that a councilmember was not disqualified from voting on a rezoning because his father owned legal title to the tract in question. The attorney general has also advised that a prohibited interest does not necessarily arise when the spouse of a city employee is elected mayor. The opinion carefully avoids any statement about future action of the council on the existing employment relationship. The Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based upon marital status. Making inquiries into the marital status of employees or applicants for city positions is not recommended. e. Business connections Business interests can also create conflicts—even if there is no personal financial interest under the general law. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Oficial Conflict of Interest Page 18 RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op. 90e (Aug. 25, 1997). In one situation, the attorney general advised that a housing authority commissioner had a conflict when—as a foreman—he would aid his employer, a contractor, in making a bid to the housing authority. In a different opinion, the attorney general found that a mayor or councilmember would not be disqualified from office because he was an employee of a nonprofit corporation that provided public access cable service to the city, but must abstain from participating in any related actions. f. Land use Since a city council must deal with land matters within its jurisdiction, it is almost inevitable that such decisions will affect property owned or used by one of its members. (1) Property ownership Whether or not property ownership disqualifies a councilmember from participating in a land use decision will depend (to some extent) on the nature of the decision and the numbers of persons or properties affected. At one extreme is adoption of a new zoning ordinance (or a comprehensive revision of an existing ordinance) that may impact all property in the city. In this situation, the councilmember's interest is not personal and he or she should be able to participate. If this was not allowed, such ordinances might never be adopted. At the other extreme is the application for a zoning variance or special use permit that only applies to a councilmember's property. Such a specific, personal interest will likely disqualify the member from participating in the proceedings. However, the councilmember should still be able to submit the required application to the city. Between these two extremes are those proceedings affecting some lots or parcels, one of which a councilmember owns. In such situations, it is a question of fact whether the councilmember should not vote. In such circumstances, the council must decide whether the member should be disqualified—a decision which is subject to review in the courts if challenged. In many situations where the right to vote is questioned, an interested councilmember will refrain from participating in order to avoid the "appearance" of impropriety. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 19 RELEVANT LINKS: Continental Property Group. Inc. v. City of Minneapolis. No. A10-1072 (Minn. 0. App. May 3, 2011) (unpublished opinion). LMC information memo, Special Assessment Guide. Petition of✓ocobson, 234 Minn. 296, 48 N.W.2d 441 (1951). Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. I, 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967). A.G. Op. 59a-32 (Sept. 11, 1978). (2) Bias Personal bias can also be a concern. In one case, a biased councilmember voting on a land use matter made the council's decision arbitrary. As a result, the court determined that the property buyer's due process rights were violated and returned the matter for a new hearing—one where the biased councilmember would not participate. (3) Local improvements and special assessments A councilmember owning land to be benefited by a local improvement is probably not prohibited from petitioning for the improvement, voting to undertake it, or voting to adopt the resulting special assessment. Although one Minnesota decision found an interested county board member's participation on a county ditch proceeding inappropriate, a subsequent case found otherwise. These two cases can also be distinguished on their facts. The first concerned a proposed county ditch that bypassed a county board member's property. Although the board member participated in preliminary proceedings, he did not attend the final hearing. The court vacated the county board's order establishing the proposed ditch since the preliminary proceedings may have had a substantial effect on later actions taken at the final hearing. The court said the board member should not have participated in any of the proceedings regarding the project. The court in the second case found there was no disqualifying conflict of interest when four of the five managers of a watershed district owned land that would be benefited by a proposed watershed district improvement project. The court recognized the situation was similar to those where members of a city council assess lands owned by them for local improvements. As a result, the court found this potential conflict of interest did not disqualify the district board members from participating in the improvement proceedings. It is possible a councilmember's property ownership might result in a more favorable treatment of that property in an assessment project. If that happened, the assessment might be challenged for arbitrariness and set aside—whether or not the councilmember participated in the proceedings. (4) Zoning The attorney general has advised that a council is not prevented from rezoning property owned by a councilmember (or property owned by his or her client). However, the councilmember may not participate in those proceedings. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 20 RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op 471 -((Sept. 13, 1963). LMC information memo, Dangerous Properties. Webster v. Ed. of County Conun'rs of Washington County, 26 Minn. 220,2 N.W. 697 (1897). Section VII -C -2-d, FFRAs and ED,4s. Rowell v. Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. 0. App. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by Krmmnenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010). Webster v. 13d. of County Conn's of Washington County, 26 Minn. 220, 2 N.W. 697 (1897). In an earlier opinion, the attorney general said it was a question of fact whether a town board member had a disqualifying interest for having sold land that was the subject of rezoning. However, the attorney general appeared to assume that if the board member had a sufficient interest in the land, the member would be disqualified from voting on the rezoning. (5) Condemnation While a councilmember's ownership interest in land subject to condemnation seems to preclude participation in any council actions regarding the property, Minnesota courts have not ruled directly on this question. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court did not disqualify a county board member from participating in condemnation proceedings to establish a highway when the board member owned land adjoining the proposed highway. The court suggested the decision might have been different if the owner had been entitled to damages if the highway had gone through his property. (6) Renewal and redevelopment An interest in property subject to urban renewal may be grounds for disqualification. However, when the property is within a larger urban renewal program, but not in the project area subject to the decision, it is arguable the councilmember would not be disqualified from voting. Since there have been no Minnesota cases addressing this issue, councilmembers with these types of interests may wish to abstain from voting or seek an opinion from the city attorney regarding the appropriateness of their participation. (7) Church affiliation The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a zoning board member was not disqualified from voting on a zoning variance requested by that member's church. The court found the nature of the financial interest could not have influenced the voting board member. The person's membership in the church, without evidence of a closer connection, was not a sufficiently direct interest in the outcome to justify setting aside the board's zoning action. g. Streets (1) Acquisition As previously noted, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a county board member who owned land adjoining a proposed county highway did not have a disqualifying interest preventing him from voting on the establishment of the highway. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 21 RELEVANT LINKS: Township Bd. of Lake Valley Township v. Lewis, 305 Minn. 488, 234 N. W.2d 815 (1975). LMC information memo, Acquisition and Maintenance of City Streets. A.G. Op. 396g-16(Oct. 15, 1957). Petition of Jacobson, 234 Minn. 296, 48 N.W.2d 441 (1951). LMC information memo, (Vacation of City Streets. A.G. Op. 218-R (Apr. 29, 1952). E.T.O., Inc. v. Town of :Marion, 375 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1985). MinnR. 7515.0430, subp. 5. The board member's interest was similar to that of the rest of the public and differed only in degree. A different decision may have been reached, however, had the highway gone through the commissioner's land. The Minnesota Supreme Court also refused to disqualify a town board supervisor that asked a landowner to circulate a petition for a road. The court reasoned that the decision to establish a town road is, by its very nature, of interest to all local citizens, including board members who may be in the best position to know the need for a road. The court also stated that the ability of affected property owners to appeal to the district court would adequately protect them from any possible prejudice. (2) Vacation It is arguable that a street vacation is not essentially different from the establishment of a street, where abutting owners have been held not to have a disqualifying interest. However, the attorney general advised that a councilmember who had an interest in property abutting a street proposed for vacation could not participate in the vacation proceedings. h. Licenses and permits When a councilmember is an applicant for a license or a permit that requires council approval, the member's personal (often financial) interest should prevent his or her participation in the decision-making process. In some situations, a councilmember may have a possible conflict of interest even if he or she is not the licensee. The attorney general said that a councilmember who was a part-time employee of a licensee could not vote on reducing the liquor license fee if it could be shown that the councilmember was personally interested. For example, if the fee reduction would affect the councilmember's compensation or continued employment, he or she would obviously have a personal financial interest in the decision. However, whether an individual's personal interest is sufficient to disqualify him or her from voting on the decision is a question involving specific facts that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In a similar case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a town board member who owned property across from a bar was disqualified from voting on the license renewal. The town board member stated his property had been devalued by $100,000 since the bar opened, and he was elected to the board based largely on his opposition to the bar. The court stated, "A more direct, admitted, financial interest is hard to imagine." A state rule prohibits a councilmember from voting on a liquor license for a spouse or relative. The rule does not define who is included as a "relative," so cities may need to consult with their city attorney for guidance in specific situations. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 22 RELEVANT LINKS: Nodes v. City of Hastings, 284 Minn. 552, 170 N.W.2d 92 (1969). 1989 Street Improvement Program r. Denmark Township, 483 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). "Voting Riddles," Minnesota Cities (Apr. 2007, p. 17). Stale ex rel. Hilton v. Sword, 157 Minn. 263, 196 N.W. 467 (1923). Kenney v. Coergen, 36 Minn. 190, 31 N.W. 210 (1886). McCutcheon v. City of St. Patti, 298 Minn. 443, 216 N.W.2d 137 (1974). 3. Consequences Actions taken where a councilmember with a disqualifying interest participated may be valid if the result would have been the same without the interested official's vote. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a decision by a three-member civil service commission to terminate a police officer for failing to pay his financial debts. The court held that it would have been a "better practice" for the commission member who had been a creditor of the officer to have disqualified himself and abstained from voting. However, the court held that the interested commission member's participation in a unanimous decision did not invalidate the commission's decision. Councilmembers who have a disqualifying interest in a matter are generally excluded when counting the number of Councilmembers necessary for a quorum, or for the number necessary to approve an action by a four-fifths vote, such as approving a special assessment. C. Recommendation City officials concerned about conflicts of interest in contractual or non - contractual situations should: • Consult the city attorney. • Disclose the interest as early as possible (orally and in writing). • Not attempt to influence others. • Not participate in any discussions (when possible, leave the room when the governing body is discussing the matter). • Follow the statutory procedures provided for the contracting exceptions. • Abstain from voting or taking any other official actions unless the city attorney determines that there is no prohibited conflict of interest. V. Compatibility of offices Whether a city official can also serve the city or other government entity in some other capacity is quite complicated. State laws generally do not prevent a person from holding two or more governmental positions. However, without specific statutory authority, government officials cannot hold more than one position if the functions are incompatible or if the jobs create a conflict between two different public interests. The common law doctrine of incompatibility applies to the functions of two inconsistent offices. However, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an "office" for the purpose of this law. Certainly it would include all elected offices. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 23 RELEVANT LINKS: "Compatibility of Offices," House Information Brief (July 2012). 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326. 5 C.F.R. § 734.101. Minn. Stat. § 43A.32. Minnesota Management & Budget, 400 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155; (651) 201-8000. Minn. Stat. § 410.191. Minn. Stat. § 412.02, subd. la. Kenney v. Goegen, 36 Minn. 190,31 N.W.210(1886). State ex rel. Hilton v. Sward. 157 Minn. 263, 196 N.W. 467 (1923). But, it can also include appointed offices such as city administrators, managers, and police chiefs. Generally, an office has greater responsibility, importance, and independence than mere city employment. A. Public employment 1. Federal employees Federal employees are generally prohibited from being candidates in local partisan elections. An election is considered "partisan" if candidates are elected as representing political parties. 2. State employees State employees generally can run for and hold local elected office as long as there is no conflict with their regular state employment. The commissioner of the department of management and budget will determine whether a conflict exists. 3. City employment Neither the mayor nor any city councilmember may also be a "full-time, permanent" city employee. Full-time, permanent employment is defined by the city's employment policy. For "part-time" positions, it must be determined if the elements or responsibilities of the two positions are incompatible with one another. If the two positions are incompatible, an individual may not serve in both positions at the same time. B. Incompatible offices—elements Offices are generally incompatible when a specific statute or charter provision: • States that one person may not hold two or more specific positions. • Requires that the officer may not take another position. • Requires that the office devote to the position full-time. In addition, positions may be determined to be incompatible with one another. This typically occurs when the holder of one position (or the group or board of which the person is a member): • Hires or appoints the other. • Sets the salary for the other. • Performs functions that are inconsistent with the other, for example, a person cannot supervise or evaluate himself or herself. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 24 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 410.05, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 469.095, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 481.17. A.G. Op. 358e-9 (Feb. 10, 1912). A.G. Op. No. 639 (Mar. 7, 1919). A.G. Op. 358e-3 (July 29, 1997). A.G. Op. 900 (Aug. 25, 1997). Minn. Stat. § 420.03. Minn. Stat. § 273.061, subd. lc. A.G. Op. 358e -I (Feb. 21, 1947). A.G. Op. 358e-3 (Mar. 6, 1946). • Approves the official or fidelity bond of the other. C. Specific offices It is important to remember that incompatibility often depends on the nature of the offices and their relationship to one another. So, while offices may have been determined to be incompatible in the past, a different conclusion could be reached based on current relationships or responsibilities. A city official who is considering seeking an additional office should obtain a legal opinion from the city attorney on the compatibility of the two offices. 1. Compatible offices The following offices are compatible pursuant to state statute: • City charter commission member and any elective or appointed office other than judicial (however, the city charter may specifically exclude councilmembers from serving on the charter commission). • City councilmember and HRA commissioner. • City councilmember and EDA commissioner. • City attorney and county attorney (in counties with a population under 12,000). In addition, the attorney general has found the following offices compatible: • City councilmember and county treasurer. • City mayor and court administrator. • City attorney and assistant county attorney. • City councilmember and officer of nonprofit, public -access cable service provider. 2. Incompatible offices The following offices are incompatible pursuant to state statute: • Firefighter's civil service commission member and any other office or employment under the city, the United States, or any of the state's political subdivisions. • City councilmember and county assessor. In addition, the attorney general has found the following offices incompatible: • Mayor and city councilmember. • Councilmember and city attorney. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 25 RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op. 358e-7 (Mar. 5, 1965). A.G. Op. 358 (Dec. 18, 1970). A.C. Op. 358e-9 (Dec. 13, 1939). A.G. Op. 358r(May 21, 1954). A.G. Op. 3581'(June 30, 1955). A.G. Op. 358a -I (Feb. 25, 1958). A.G. Op. 218-R (Feb. 25, 1946). A.G. Op. 358-E-4 (San. 19, 1965), Minn. Stat. § 471 88, subd. 6. A.G. Op. 358-E-9 (Apr. 5, 1971). A.G. Op. 90-E (Apr. 17, 1978). Minn. Stat. § 412.152. Minn. Stat. § 410.33. • Councilmember and city treasurer. • City attorney and city treasurer. • Mayor and school board member. • Councilmember and school board member. • Councilmember and school board treasurer. • City councilmember and county assessor. • Councilmember and municipal liquor store manager. 3. Fire departments City officials are often interested in whether a member of the city fire department— perhaps the chief or another officer—can also serve on the city council. It is, unfortunately, not an easy question to answer. In 1965, the attorney general advised that a councilmember could also be a member of a volunteer city fire department under the exception to the conflict of interest law that permits contracts with a volunteer fire department for payment of compensation or retirement benefits. But in a later opinion, the attorney general advised that the fire chief of a municipal fire department automatically vacated the office of fire chief when he accepted a seat on the city council. This opinion did not mention the exception listed in the conflict of interest law or the 1965 opinion. In 1978, the attorney general considered the issue again and advised that the exception to the conflict of interest law allows a councilmember to be a member of an independent volunteer fire department when a contract for compensation or retirement benefits is negotiated, as long as the procedural requirements for the exception are followed. The attorney general also explained that the reason for the different results in the two earlier opinions was because the 1965 opinion involved a fire department member who was not an officer and the 1971 opinion involved a fire department member who was the fire chief. In 1997, the Minnesota Legislature attempted to clarify the issue by allowing one person to hold the position of statutory city mayor and fire chief of an independent, nonprofit firefighting corporation that serves the city. Although the statute is specifically for statutory cities, home rule charter cities may be able to use it if their charters are silent on the matter. Basically, the mayor and fire chief positions are not incompatible as long as: • The mayor does not appoint the fire chief. • The mayor does not set the salary or the benefits of the fire chief. • Neither office performs functions that are inconsistent with the other. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 26 RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op. 358-E (Feb. 18, 1958). State ex re[. Hilton v. Sword, 157 Minn. 263, 196 N.W. 467(1923). "Compatibility of Offices," House Information Brief (July 2012). ® Neither office contracts with the other in their official capacity. • The mayor does not approve the fidelity bond of the fire chief. The statute remains unclear on several points, however. It does not address council positions other than the mayor. It also appears to be limited to independent, nonprofit fire departments, so city departments (whether volunteer or salaried) are not addressed. And although it outlines general criteria under which there will not be incompatibilities, there is still some vagueness regarding what functions would be considered inconsistent. Because each city has a different relationship with its fire department, a city may want to get a legal opinion from its attorney or from the attorney general before allowing a councilmember to serve as a volunteer firefighter with any sort of supervisory powers. D. Consequence—automatic resignation An individual generally can run for election to a position that is incompatible with the position the person already holds without resigning from the first position. However, when an official qualifies for a second and incompatible position (by taking an oath and filing a bond, if necessary), he or she automatically resigns from the first position, which then becomes vacant. Whether two offices are incompatible will depend upon the responsibilities of each of the offices and their relationship. Cities with questions may wish to secure a legal opinion from the city attorney or the attorney general. VI. Codes of conduct Ethical expectations can be difficult to convey. In addition, the conflict of interest (or "ethics") laws are scattered throughout many statutes and court cases, making them difficult to find and hard to interpret. As a result, some cities have developed and adopted their own policies on ethics and conflicts of interest. These policies must be consistent with state law and generally take two forms: a values statement expressing core principles for ethical conduct, or a formal code of conduct. Cities may adopt a values statement or a code of conduct or both. However, it is important to note that state law does not require formal adoption of a city ethics policy. A. LMC Ethics Advisory Panel The work of the LMC Ethics Advisory Panel resulted in two documents— the Model Statement of Values and the Template Code of Conduct. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 27 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC's Ethics Advisory Panel Model Statement of Values. LMC's Ethics Advisory Panel "template Code of Conduct. 1. Model Statement of Values The Model Statement of Values is an aspirational document, intended to provide a framework for ethical decision-making. The values it promotes can only be self -enforced, primarily by providing an ethical anchor, raising the quality of discussion and expectations among city officials and those in the community, and by appealing to the conscience of the individual. It would be difficult and likely counterproductive to suggest that such values could be subject to formal review or enforcement action. Cities may choose to use the Model Statement of Values in a variety of ways, including: • Providing a copy to all elected officials, advisory commission members, and even city staff members for their reference. • Using it as the basis for a local workshop or just a discussion to encourage more city and community dialogue about what ethics means in your city. • Formally adopting it as a statement of the way in which city officials and the community would like to see public business conducted. 2. Template Code of Conduct The Template Code of Conduct is a law -based document, incorporating very specific standards of behavior that are already written into state statute or that have been handed down by court rulings. The Code of Conduct also offers legal methods for dealing with infractions. By adopting this code at the municipal level, a city council can take self - initiated action to see that these standards are upheld in the community, rather than having to wait on civil litigation initiated by citizens or criminal prosecution by the county attorney. The Template Code of Conduct should be considered for formal adoption as a city ordinance. The template can locally codify existing and relatively well articulated standards of conduct already required by state law, so enforcement through quasi-judicial review is feasible. When adopting the code, cities need to consider to whom the code applies. Cities also need to formulate a hearing procedure. This document has been carefully reviewed by LMC legal counsel, and it is recommended that any modifications be considered only after careful review by the city attorney. Cities that choose not to formally adopt the template may still find the document to be a useful and concise reference piece for individual city officials. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 28 RELEVANT LINKS: International City/County Management Association's Code of Ethics (Sept. 2013). Minn. Stat. eh. IOA. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, 190 Centennial Office Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155; (651)539-1180 or(800)657-3889. Minn. Stat. § 10A.02. Minn. Stat. § 10A.02, subd. 12. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, 190 Centennial Office Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155;(651)539-1180 or (800) 657-3889. Minn. Stat. § 10A.0I. Minn. Stat. § 10A.0I,subd. 22. B. Professional rules of conduct Many professionals have adopted rules of conduct to guide individuals working within those fields. For example, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) as well as our state's affiliate (MCMA) has adopted a code of ethics that defines a manager's core set of values. These values help define and guide a city manager's ethical obligations to council, other staff, the general public, and the profession itself. VII. Ethics in Government Act (campaign financing) In Minnesota, campaign financing is governed by Minnesota Statute chapter 10A, also known as the Ethics in Government Act (Act). The following is a brief overview of some of the major responsibilities of the Act (as well as some related statutes) and how they impact some city officials. The Act is administered by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (Board). The Board has four primary responsibilities: • Campaign finance registration and disclosure. • Public subsidy administration. • Lobbyist registration and disclosure. • Economic interest disclosure by public officials. Individuals subject to the Act may request an advisory opinion from the Board to guide their compliance with the law. Requests for an opinion (as well as the opinions themselves) are classified as "nonpublic" data, but a "public" version of the opinion is published on the Board's website. A. Application All candidates for and holders of state constitutional or legislative offices, as well as other "lobbyists," "principals" and "public officials" are subject to the Act. In addition, while not applicable to all city officials, the Act does apply to "local officials" serving "Metropolitan government units." 1. Local officials A "local official" is a person who falls into one or both of these categories: • Holds elected office. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 29 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 24. Minn. Stat. § 473.121, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 21. Minn. Stat. §§ 10A.03-.05. "Lobbyist Handbook," Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (Sept. 2013). Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 33. Minn. Stat. § 10A.04, subd. 6. • Is appointed to a public position in which the person has authority to make, to recommend, or to vote on as a member of the governing body, major decisions regarding the expenditure or investment of public money. 2. Metropolitan government units The Act applies to local officials in "metropolitan government units," which includes cities with populations over 50,000 in the seven -county metro area. 3. Advocates The Act contains broad reporting requirements for individuals and associations who try to influence the decision-making process. a. Lobbyists A "lobbyist" is an individual who: • Is paid more than $3,000 from all sources in any year attempting to influence legislative or administrative action, or the official action of a metropolitan governmental unit by communicating (or urging others to communicate) with public officials or local officials. • Spends more than $250 (not including travel expenses or membership dues) in any year attempting to influence legislative or administrative action, or the official actions of a metropolitan government unit by communicating (or urging others to communicate) with public officials or local officials. Lobbyists must register with and report their expenditures to the Board by January 15 and June 15 each year. These reports must include gifts and items valued at $5 or more given to local officials, state lawmakers, or other public office holders. b. Principals A "principal" is an individual or association that spends more than $500 in any calendar year for a lobbyist or $50,000 or more in a calendar year to influence legislative action, administrative action, or the official action of metropolitan governmental units. Principals must file spending reports with the Board. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 30 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 10A.04. Minn. Stat. § IOh01, subd. 21. Minn. Stat. § 10A.07I, subd. 1(b). Section [11, Gifts. Minn. Stat. § 10A.071, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 10A.071, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 11. c. City advocates City employees and non -elected city officials who spend more than 50 hours in any month on lobbying activities must also register and submit expense reports with the Board. B. Gift ban A "gift" is defined as money, property (real or personal), a service, a loan, the forbearance or forgiveness of debt, or a promise of future employment, given and received without the giver receiving equal or greater value in return. 1. Prohibition A lobbyist or principal may not give gifts, or request that others give gifts to officials, and officials may not accepts gifts from lobbyists or principals. 2. Exceptions The following types of gifts are permitted under exceptions to the general ban: • Contributions to a political committee, political fund, principal campaign committee, or party unit. • Services to assist an official in the performance of official duties. Such services can include advice, consultation, information, and communication in connection with legislation and services to constituents. • Services of insignificant monetary value. • A plaque with a resale value of $5 or less. • A trinket or memento costing $5 or less. • Informational material with a resale value of $5 or less. • Food or beverage given at a reception, meal or meeting. This exception applies if the recipient is making a speech or answering questions as part of a program that is located away from the recipient's place of work. This exception also applies if the recipient is a member or employee of the legislature and an invitation to attend was given to all members of the legislature at least five days before the date of the event. • Gifts received because of membership in a group. This exception does not apply if the majority of group members are officials. In addition, an equivalent gift must also be offered to the other members of the group. • Gifts between family members. However, the gift may not be given on behalf of someone who is not a member of the family. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 31 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 10A.02, subd. 12. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, 190 Centennial Office Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155;(651)539-1180 or(800) 657-3889. Minn. Stat. § IOA.01, subd. 24. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Forms. Minn. Stat. § 10A.09. Minn. R. ch. 4505. Minn. Stat. § IOA.09, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 2. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board: Elected Statement of Economic Interest and Appointed Statement of Economic Interest. Minn. Stat. § IOA.09, subd. 5. 3. Advisory opinions The Board issues advisory opinions regarding the lobbyist gift ban. These opinions may be relevant to any Minnesota city struggling with the application or implication of a gift ban to a particular situation. C. Filings and disclosures Chapter 10A applies to "metropolitan governmental units" and includes some cities. Only local officials (including candidates for elected office) in the seven county metropolitan area cities with a population over 50,000 must submit the following to the Board. 1. Statements of economic interest Local officials (including candidates for elected office) in cities within the seven -county metropolitan area with a population over 50,000 must file a statement of economic interest with the Board. a. Time for filing An individual must file within one of the following timeframes: • Within 60 days of accepting employment. • Within 14 days after filing an affidavit of candidacy or petition to appear on the ballot for an elective office. b. Notification The county auditor must notify the Board upon receipt of an affidavit of candidacy or a petition to appear on the ballot from someone required to file a statement of economic interest. Likewise, an official who nominates or employs an individual required to file a statement of economic interest must notify the Board. The county auditor or nominating official must provide: • The individual's name. • The date of the affidavit of candidacy, petition, or nomination. c. Form Local officials must report the following information: • Their name, address, occupation, and principal place of business. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 32 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 6. Minn. R. 4505,0900. Minn, Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 6a. Minn, Stat. § 356A06, subd. 4(c). Minn. Stat. § 424A.04. Minn. Stat. § 356A.06, subd. 4, • The name of each associated business (and the nature of that association). • A listing of all real property interests in the state (excluding homestead). • Any interests connected to pari-mutuel horse racing in the U.S. or Canada. • A listing of the principal business or professional activity category of each business where the individual receives more than $50 in any month as an employee, but only if the individual has a 25% or more ownership interest in the business. • A listing of each principal business or professional activity category where the individual has received more than $2,500 in compensation in the past 12 months as an independent contractor. (Note: For a person who is a public official before May 22, 2014, the last two bullet points must be provided in supplementary statements due April 15, 2015.) Local officials must file supplementary statements by April 15 of each year, as well as a final statement when leaving office. d. Access The local official must file the statement with the city council. If an official position is both a public official and a local official of a metropolitan governmental unit, the official must also file the statement with the Board. Statements of economic interest are classified as public data. e. Pension plan trustees Each member of the governing board of a public pension plan must file a statement of economic interest. This applies to the trustees of a local relief association pension plan and includes ex -officio members, such as the mayor and city clerk. The statement must include: • The person's principal occupation and place of business. • Whether or not the person has an ownership of or interest of ten percent or greater in an investment security brokerage business, a real estate sales business, an insurance agency, a bank, a savings and loan, or another financial institution. • Any relationships or financial arrangements that could give rise to a conflict of interest. The statement must be filed annually with the plan's chief administrative officer and be available for public inspection during regular office hours. The statement must also be filed with the Board by January 15 of each year. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Oficial Conflict of Interest Page 33 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 3838.053. Minn. Stat. § 10A.07. Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 22. Minn. R. ch. 4515. Minn. Stat. § 10A.07, subd. I. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board: Potential Conflict of Interest Notice. Minn. Stat. § 10A.07, subd. I. Minn. Stat. § 10A.07, subd. v Minn. R. 4515.0500. f. Hennepin County There are additional disclosure requirements for elected officials of cities in Hennepin County with a population of 75,000 or greater. 2. Conflicts of Interest Local officials (including city employees with authority to make, recommend, or vote on major decisions regarding the expenditure or investment of public funds) must disclose certain information if they will be involved in decisions or take actions that substantially affect their financial interests or those of a business with which they are associated. However, disclosure is not required if the effect on the official is no greater than on others in that business classification, profession, or occupation more generally. a. Disclosure When conflicts arise, the interested official or employee must: • Prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest. • Deliver a copy of the notice to his or her superiors. • If the official is an employee, notice should be provided to his or her immediate supervisor. • If the official reports directly to the city council, notice should be given to the council. • If the official is appointed, notice should go to the chair of that board, commission, or committee. If the chair has the conflict, notice should go to the appointing authority—the city council. • If the official is elected, the written statement should go to the presiding officer (typically the mayor). • If the potential conflict involves the mayor, notice should be provided to the acting presiding officer. If a potential conflict arises and there is not time to provide written notice, the official must orally inform his or her supervisor or the city council. b. Delegation or abstention The official's supervisor must assign the matter to another employee who does not have a potential conflict of interest. If there is no immediate supervisor (as is the case with the city council), the official must abstain from voting or otherwise influencing the decision-making process. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Oficial Conflict of Interest Page 34 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 10A.07, subd. Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board: Inability to Abstain from Potential Conflict of Interest Form. Minn. Stat. § 469.009. Minn. Stat. § 469.098. "Local Officials in a Metropolitan Govenunent Unit Handbook," Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (Feb. 2010). Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, 190 Centennial Office Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155;(651)539-1180 or (800) 657-3889. c. Inability to abstain If the city official is not permitted to abstain or cannot abstain, he or she must file a statement describing the potential conflict and the action taken. The official must file this statement with the city council within a week of the action. d. HRAs and EDAs Before taking an action or making a decision which could substantially affect the commissioner's (or an employee's) financial interests (or those of an organization with which the commissioner or an employee is associated), commissioners or employees of an HRA or EDA are required to disclose their interests. Individuals face criminal penalties for noncompliance. D. Violations Individuals who are subject to the Act can be personally responsible for any sanctions that result from failing to comply with the reporting requirements. Criminal and civil penalties are available for individuals who: • Knowingly file false information or knowingly omit required information. • Willfully fail to amend a filed statement. • Knowingly fail to keep records for four years from the date of filing. Local officials with questions concerning their responsibilities under the Act should contact their city attorney or Board staff. VIII.Conclusion All public officials face ethical challenges during the term of their public service. Reviewing the roles elected and appointed officials play within city government helps councils and staff sort out responsibilities, identify and mitigate conflicts of interests, and generally avoid the appearance of impropriety. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 35 Appendix A: Sample Resolution to Contract with a Council Member Before using this sample, a city should be familiar with the contents of the League of Minnesota Cities information memo, Official Conflict of Interest (October 2014). When using this form as a template, insert appropriate city -specific language where indicated and remove all explanations provided for your reference. A city wishing to use this sample should review it with the city attorney to determine whether it is suited to the city's circumstances. Because the sample implicates state and federal law, the city attorney should review any modifications to ensure they conform to current law. Additional samples are available through the LMC Research and Information Service upon request. SAMPLE RESOLUTION TO CONTRACT WITH A COUNCILMEMBER Resolution Whereas, the city of desires to purchase the following (goods / merchandise / equipment / services): (describe in detail); And whereas, (name of interested official) is the (office held by interested official) of the city and will be financially interested in the contract; And whereas, it is determined that the contract price of $ is as low as, or lower than, the price at which the goods can be obtained elsewhere at this time; In addition, whereas, the contract is not one that is required to be competitively bid. Now be it resolved by the city of , Minnesota that the city clerk is directed to make the above-mentioned purchase on behalf of the city from (name of interested officer) for a price League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 36 of $ . It is also resolved that the mayor and city clerk are directed to issue an order -check to pay the claim on the filing of an affidavit of official interest by the interested official as required under Minn. Stat. § 471.89. This resolution is passed to comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 471.87-.89. Passed by unanimous vote of the city council on (day and date). Mayor Clerk League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 37 Appendix B: Sample Resolution Ratifying Emergency Contract Before using this sample, a city should be familiar with the contents of the League of Minnesota Cities information memo, Official Conflict of Interest (October 2014). When using this form as a template, insert appropriate city -specific language where indicated and remove all explanations provided for your reference. A city wishing to use this sample should review it with the city attorney to determine whether it is suited to the city's circumstances. Because the sample implicates state and federal law, the city attorney should review any modifications to ensure they conform to current law. Additional samples are available through the LMC Research and Information Service upon request. SAMPLE RESOLUTION RATFIYING EMERGENCY CONTRACT Resolution Whereas, the city council of (city name) has declared that a special emergency is in effect; And Whereas, immediate action to respond to the situation is needed in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community; And Whereas, the immediate purchase of (goods/equipment/supplies) was required to respond to the emergency; And Whereas, Minn. Stat. §§ 365.37 and 415.01 provide that the emergency contract is not subject to the normal purchasing and competitive -bidding requirements because of the emergency. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 38 And whereas, on (day and date), the city of purchased the following (goods / merchandise / equipment /service) from (name of company or person with whom the contract was made): (specify the type of goods, merchandise, equipment, or services that were bought); And whereas, (name of interested official) was the (office held by interested official) on this date and was personally interested financially in the contract; And whereas, the purchase could not be authorized in advance because of the following emergency: (specify emergency); And Whereas, the contract price of $ paid for such goods is as low, or lower than the price at which they could be obtained elsewhere at the time the purchase was made; And whereas, the contract is not one that is required to be competitively bid. Now be it resolved by the city of , Minnesota that the above-mentioned purchase by the city and the claim of the vendor based on it are confirmed and the mayor and clerk are directed to issue an order -check to pay the claim on the filing of an affidavit of official interest by the interested officer as required under Minn. Stat. § 471.89. This resolution is passed to comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 471.87-.89. Passed by unanimous vote of the council on (day and date). Mayor Clerk League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 39 Appendix C: Sample Affidavit of Official Interest in Claim Before using this sample, a city should be familiar with the contents of the League of Minnesota Cities information memo, Official Conflict of Interest (October 2014). When using this form as a template, insert appropriate city -specific language where indicated and remove all explanations provided for your reference. A city wishing to use this sample should review it with the city attorney to determine whether it is suited to the city's circumstances. Because the sample implicates state and federal law, the city attorney should review any modifications to ensure they conform to current law. Additional samples are available through the LMC Research and Information Service upon request. SAMPLE AFFIDAVIT OFFICIAL INTEREST IN CLAIM STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ) I, (Name of interested officer), being duly sworn state the following: 1) I am (office held by interested official) of the city of , Minnesota. 2) On (day and date), the following (goods / merchandise /equipment /services) were furnished by (name of business or individual with whom the contract was made) to the city of : (speck the type of goods merchandise, equipment, or services that were purchased). 3) The contract price for such (goods / merchandise / equipment / services) was $ and their reasonable value was $ League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 40 4) At the time such (goods/merchandise /equipment/services) were furnished to the city, I had the following personal financial interest in this contract: (specify the nature of the personal financial interest) To the best of my knowledge and belief, the contract price is as low as, or lower than the price at which the (goods / merchandise / equipment / services) could be obtained from other sources. I further state that this affidavit constitutes a claim against the city for the contract price, that the claim is just and correct, and that no part of the claim has been paid. (signature of interested official) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of (month) (year). (signature of notary) League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 41 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www.cilittle-canadainn.us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPERTY DIVISION MAYOR John Keis COUNCIL, Rick Montour Michael McGraw Tom Fischer Christian '1'orkel son ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Property Division subdividing one (1) single-family lot into two (2) single-family lots. The property in question is zoned Single -Family Residential (R-1) District. APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Jerry Carlson Exceptional Homes by Design, Inc. 8 Willow Road North Oaks, MN 55127 PROPERTY LOCATION: 716 Lahore Road Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at its regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2015. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will he held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2015 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2015. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator 1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: LEE HOMES, INC NOF2i'N a 30 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 30ft. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 716 LABORE ROAD, LITTLE CANADA, MN MINOR SUBDIVISION Benchmark: j$6 TNH 915.32 3 Benchmark:_ INN enchmark:_- INH 917.46 i p�ORNER FALLS --IN,,fENCE POST G gvJ 8, 91i 1 0 a 809.7 x 802.0 Side 10' Rear 30 a �� Q.Y .... t. LG SPK • � .22" OPEN S48°59'2.0I'W as} - 0 OBG • . 788.0 NOTES - Field survey conducted on May 14Th, 13'. - BEARING'S SHORN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. - Curb shots taken at top and bock of curb. - Benchmark and bearings are assumed. Benchmarks are noted on survey. - Zone R1 (Shorelond) Setbacks: Front 30' Lot Width: 75'(C9ROW) Lot Area: 10,000 S.F. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Per Tit/e Commitment #23537, Stewart Title Company, doted 5-13-2013. That port of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 43, Ramsey County. Minnesota, Iyng North of o line drown al right jj DENOTES BITUMINOUS ong'es to the East line of sold Lot 20, and drown from a point distant 180 feat South of the Northeast corner thereon together with an casement along the East 20 feet of the part of sold lot 20 lying South of said line. 89.3 801.7 x 73.90 1,47.80 SPK O z 912 1" OPEN /2" OPEN 994 e9> Ex Not 0 LEGEND o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT TO BE SET • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND "Oa DENOTES UTILITY POLE O DENOTES STREET LIGIIT • DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ® DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE 6v P.71 DENOTES GATE VALVE Yi7 DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR o'k--- DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE — 1 DENOTES WATERMAIN DENOTES SANITARY SEWER ---» DENOTES STORM SEWER —a—•— DENOTES EXISTING FENCE x1o11.20EN0TES EXISTING ELEVATION. I horeby certify thot This plan, surveyor report was prepared by mo or under a u my direct s pervieion and That I am duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of State o( Minnesota. P, Jos ua P. Schneider Revised: 3-31-14 Date: 06-03-13 Reg. No. 44655 to DENOTES TREE ACRE LAND SURVEYING Serving Twin Cities Metro = area and beyond `-9..763-238-6278 js.acrelendsury yo gmail,com 10 r e 13 h I5 m n 2 n 1m 1 rn r3 440 lu m 114 ,e 1.8 pa C'.\Lond Prohcts 2008\1327705-Audltare Sub No 43\dro\ 327 05879 2 CERTIFICATE OF S FOR: LEE HOMES, INC NORTH ( IN 109('0' ) 1 inch e 30 ft. [Iffy PROPERTY ADDRESS: 716 LABORE ROAD, LITTLE CANADA, MN MINOR SUBDIVISION 0 � ch Oz Benchmark: TNH 915.32 Benchmark__ TNH 917.46 4JENPAILS --INyfENCECE POST sO 9rg .cot 095 w I M NOTES I II I Field survey do:Ideated on May 14Th, 131. • (SEARING'S 5110018/ ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. Curb shots taken at top and back of curly"2 • Benchmark and hearings ore assumed. Benchmarks are noted on survey. - Zone 21 (Shoreland) Setbacks: Front 30' Side 10' Rear 30' Lot Width: 75(GROW) Lot Area: 10,000 S.F. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION 002.0 On.d '99E /2" ons S88°5920 . II90. .:�r .............. ,. LG SPK OPEN W '147.80 .zo 0 141 8006 .086.0 HSo Per Title Commitment /23537, Stewart Title Company, doted 5-13-2013. Mot owl of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 43, Romsey County, Minnesota, Iyfng North of a Fina drown of right 0n91as to the East line of said Lot 20. and drawn from o point distant 180 loot South of the Northeast corner Ihnroo( together with an eosmuent along the Cost 20 feel o/ the port of said Lot 20 'Ay South of said Ilnn. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A Shot port of Lot 20 Auditor's Subdivision No. 43, Ramsay County. Minnesota, lying West of Iha East 739 lo01, os mo0svred vt 1/901 orioles 10 We east lino 0I said Lot 20, and lying North of o lino drown at right angles to The East Ileo of sold Lot 20, and drown from o point distant 100 feat South of the Norfhoost comer thereof:: Parcel B Tho East 73,9 loot of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 43, Ramsay County, Minnesota, 000eh lies North of o lino drawn westerly 01 right an9los le too Soot lino of said Lot 20, sold lino drawn from o point distant 180 foot South of (lar Northeast cornor thereof; logothar with on easement along lho Eost 20 foot o/ the port of sold tot 20 ping South of sold rine. PROPOSED DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT A (i (oaf wide casement for droinope and Utility Purposes over, undm anrd aaroes Ihot pm'1 of Lot 20. Au'llors Subdivision No. 43, Ramsey County, described ns follows: Said aasment being 6 !,,cl to the right al the following described line: Beginning at Iia Northeast Corner of told Lot 20, thence southerly plana the East lint for 0 distance of 180 1,100; thence vaslorly 01 light angles la fha Wool line of said tel 20; Thence northerly along soil Weal line to Um North lino of said Lal 20: thence notthaasterly along sok) ,North Geo To the beginning of said line and there lonninaling. 1 mother with 0 12 foot wide oosem enl for drainage and utility purposes over. indor, and 00(02,0 the ohove Described property. the cenlurline being dos:riUed as 1olkws: I sjl?3 1 1 HD, LEGEND o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT 10 BE SET 9 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND `a, DENOTES UTILITY POLE xi DENOTES STREET LIGHT O DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE $ DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE cv (x7 DENOTES GATE VALVE DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE ------`------ DENOTES WATERMANN ----'-"-'--- DENOTES SANITARY SEWER -----%+--.-- DENOTES STORM SEWER DENOTES EXISTING FENCE *I0I.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. i DENOTES BITUMINOUS Commencing nI Idorlhdus'l Corner of said Lot 20. thence southerly along the hiasl 11500 DENOTES TREE (or a dist0nr.0 of 180 feel; thence weslaily at rivet angles, 0 distance 01 73.9(1 Ice( to the beginning o! the lino 10 be descrihcd; Mance North parokel with Said Fest Ilan to the North line of sold Lot 20 and said lint (Imre terminating. 1 (tomb), certify (hot this pion, survey or sopor( was proposed by rda or under my direct supervision and thol I am a duly Liconsod Land Surveyor under the lows Of e State o/ hlinnoeata. Jo P. Schneider Date: 06-03-13 Reg. No. 44655 ACRE LAND SURVEYING Serving Twin Cities Metro 1= area and beyond r -11 ; .763-238-6278 Is. acreiandsur veyr6Omaii.com e,kr,N i, ;0 ,.o 14, e: i u p. 9 10 dee C:\Loud pmpcto 2000 \13277M -Auditors Sub No 43\0w3\132770Sde 3 GRADING PU N FOR LEE HOMES, INC 0 Q Q Q Benchmark: TNH 915.32 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 716 LABORE ROAD, LITTLE CANADA, MN Benchmark:__ `...£;.8 r (NER PALL; • IN. ENCE POST a'S .. 072 0 oo 4., 0 PROPOSED RET. WALL v.g> CaiTh a95, M' h A SPK 888°59'20"W eel 88,0 NOTES – REARING'S SHOIIN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. – CONTRACTOR 70 VERIFY 110USE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER AND BASEMENT DEPTHS. – FINISHED GRADE 70 FEET raw PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE BUILDING. – FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE VA7H NRF ESTABUSt1MENT. – DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION 70 BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR – HOUSE PLACMENT AND ELEVAPONS SET BY CONTRACTOR. EttNouse 147.80.( EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Per nue Commitment 03537. Stewart Title Company, dated 5-13-2013. That port of Lot 20, Auditor's Svbdlnslon No. 43, Romsey County. Minnesota, lying North of a IncIdrawn of right angles to the East IncIof sold lot 20. and damn from o point distant 100 feet South of tho Northeast comer ammo; together with on easement along the East 20 foot of Mo port of sola Lot 20 lyeng South of sold Eno. JOB #13277 I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Revised: 1-22-15 (add rain garden) twat " OPEN NORTH so ( iN FEET') 1 inch 30ft. Noa use LEGEND ill2{?DENOTES PROPOSED EtEVAT10N. 51015.2 DEN0158 EXISTING ELEVATION. DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. a� DDENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND 5.X ENOTES UTILITY POLE {t DENOTES STREET LIGHT • DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE * DENOTES STORM SEWER MANHOLE C�7 DENOTES GATE VALVE '12; DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT —44 --- DENOTES OVERHEAD V4RE DENOTES WATERMAIN DENOTES SANITARY SEWER ----- DENOTES STORM SEWER SHUA P. SCHNEIDER Date: 1-23-14 Reg No. 44655 DENOTES EXISTING FENCE –o ---a— DENOTES PROPOSED SILT FENCE C:\Users\dosh\OneDrive\Lond Desktop 2006\13277bs–Auditors Sub No 43\dwq\7327785–GRADING.dwq 4 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 155422 'telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners«'' nacplanning. Cern MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: February 5, 2015 RE: Little Canada — Carlson Lot Split — 716 Labore Road FILE NO: 758.09 — 15,01 Background and Analysis The applicant is seeking a subdivision of a single family parcel along Labore Road. The property was previously occupied by a single family home which has since been removed. The parcel is steeply sloped from Labore to the south. The original home had a driveway which swept around the building to the south side of the property. With the subdivision, the two resulting parcels will become walk -out lots with driveways directly to Labore Road. For single family lots which were lots of record and are being subdivided into two parcels without requiring a plat, the lot requirements are as follows: As evident from the table, the lots each meet the requirement for single family lots in the R-1 zoning district. It should be noted that lots that require platting (when 3 or more lots are being created), require 11,000 square feet of area, and 85 feet of width. This requirement was adopted by the City a few years ago in order to protect existing neighborhoods from over -development, but with the recognition that lots platted many 5 Zoning Requirement Proposed Parcel A Proposed Parcel 13 Lot Width 75 feet 78.6 feet 78.12 feet Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 30 feet 10,505 s.f. 30 feet 12,275 s.f. 30 feet Front Setback Side Setback 7.5 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear Setback 30 feet 55 feet+ 80 feet+ As evident from the table, the lots each meet the requirement for single family lots in the R-1 zoning district. It should be noted that lots that require platting (when 3 or more lots are being created), require 11,000 square feet of area, and 85 feet of width. This requirement was adopted by the City a few years ago in order to protect existing neighborhoods from over -development, but with the recognition that lots platted many 5 years ago carried an expectation for the smaller standard. Thus, the applicable lot sizes were retained for those parcels. The proposed subdivision shows a retaining wall on Parcel A (the westerly parcel) on both sides of the proposed structure. The wall is necessary to accommodate access to the garage due to the steep grades. Under the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the City can consider whether the necessity for significant retaining walls such as these can affect the reasonableness of the subdivision. The applicant has proposed a grading and stormwater control plan that is designed to handle stormwater from the increased development. With approval of the City Engineer of the grading and drainage, the design can be considered for approval. A part of the grading and drainage plan includes a rain garden along the south boundary which is intended to capture stormwater from the developed area prior to running off toward other property to the south. The Engineer should comment on this design, and address any long-term maintenance requirements for this feature of the subdivision. Summary and Recommendation The proposed subdivision at 716 Labore Road meets the various dimensional standards of the City's zoning ordinance. The City Engineer is providing comment on the stormwater controls on the property. Subject to those comments, planning staff recommends approval of the subdivision as proposed. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Jerry Carlson, 8 Willow Road, North Oaks, MN 55126 6 Ilf-cliNc fl O(1TCS February 5, 2015 File: 120183E-0240 Honorable Chair and Planning Commission City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road East Little Canada, MN 55117-1633 RE: 716 LABORE ROAD LOT SPLIT CITY OF LITTLE CANADA Dear Planning Commission: We have reviewed the submittal package for the development of 716 Labore Road. The current property is approximately 22,900 square feet in size and the Applicant is proposing to split the property and develop two single family residential homes. A storm water management report was submitted including predevelopment and post development drainage maps, drainage calculations, HydroCAD modeling, soil borings, and a Storm Water Management, Erosion Control & Utility Plan, Based upon our review we would offer the following comments, Drainage Calculations 1. A time of concentration of 6 minutes is referenced in the narrative but that does not match the 10 minute time of concentration used in the HydroCAD calculations. 2. Infiltration should be disregarded in the calculations for rate control to ensure predevelopment discharge rates are maintained if the infiltration aspect of the garden is not functioning. 3. The drainage calculations reference TP -40 rainfall events. The calculations should be run utilizing the Atlas 14 rainfall events. Storm Water Management, Erosion Control & Utility Plan 1. The swale between Labore Road and the westerly proposed house directs drainage towards the west property line but it does not appear the swale continues down the west lot line to the pond. The drainage calculations submitted indicate all storm water from the site is collected in the south pond and based on the grading plan that does not appear to be the case. The grading plan should be revised or the drainage calculations modified to account for this direct offsite flow. TROK tlUR1A Other Comments 1. There is no discussion or mention in the submittal material as to the on-going or future maintenance of the storm water system proposed or the costs associated with it. The system will not receive public water, but the pond serves two private properties so it should be covered by shared easement between the two properties or in a public easement. Whether or not it is in a Public easement the maintenance would not be the responsibility of the City Ltr-020515-PC 10062 Flanders Court NE, Blaine, MN 55449 - Phone: (763) 780-0450 - Fax: (763) 780-0452 7 Planning Commission February 5, 2015 Page Two and we would recommend that a maintenance agreement be executed to ensure future maintenance is completed and a mechanism is in place for a recovery of any City costs necessary to ensure compliance. 2. All storm water runoff from this site currently drains south onto private property and the development plan as submitted does not change this condition. The new development will result in more impervious surface and discharge rates are maintained or lowered for the proposed conditions for a 2 -yr, 10 -yr, and 100 -yr event. During the smaller rain events the overall volume of water discharged from the site will be lowered, which will benefit the property to the south. However during large rain events the discharge volume will increase, which could adversely affect the property owner to the south. Based on the topography on the plan and that shown on the County's GIS map it appears the storm water discharge from 716 Labore Road is directed towards the house at 715 Keller Parkway. We have concerns that while the overall discharge rate of storm water off the site is being maintained or reduced up to the 100 year storm event, the volume of water discharged will increase for the larger storm events. We had discussed this concern with the Applicant's Engineer prior to the submittal and recommended that they work with the neighbor to ensure runoff water is directed across the property or through a in a manner that will not negatively affect the neighbor. Based on the plans it does not appear that any measures are being taken to address the conveyance of the water across the 715 Keller Parkway property. Summary The storm water calculations should be revised and resubmitted based on the comments listed including the use of the new Atlas 14 rainfall events. We have concerns relative to the discharge of storm water onto the private property to the south without an improved means of conveyance to a public right-of-way or easement. We would recommend the Planning Commission direct the applicant to work with the adjacent Property Owner to ensure storm water conveyance does not negatively impact 715 Keller Parkway. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above information at (763) 780-0450 ext. 3. Sincerely, ELFERING & ASSOCIATES Lee Elfering, P.E. City Engineer cc: Bill Dircks, Public Works Director Ltr-020515-PC 10062 Flanders Court NE, Blaine, MN 55449 - Phone: (763) 780-0450 - Fax: (763) 780-0452 8 MINUTES 01? THE REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 12, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 12th day of February, 2015 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Chair Steve Ledin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the following members of the Planning Commission were present at roll call: PLANNING COMMISSION: Mr. Steve Ledin Mr. Bill Buesing Mr. Al Davison Mr. Tom Duray Mr. Jeff Heikke Ms. Heidi Murphy Mr. Nick Sehwalbach ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Steve Grittman, City Planner Mr. Lee Elfering, City Engineer Mr. Kevin Helander, Cable TV Ms. Kathy Glanzer, City Clerk MINUTES The January 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as submitted. PROPERTY The City Planner reviewed his February 5, 2015 report relative to the DIVISION — request of Jerry Carlson, Exceptional Homes by Design, to subdivide 716 LaBORE the property at 716 LaBore Road into two single family lots. The Planner ROAD noted that the property had previously been occupied by a single-family home which has since been removed. The parcel is steeply sloped from LaBore Road to the south. The original home had a driveway which swept around the building to the south side of the property. The Planner indicated that the resulting two parcels being requested would be walk -out lots with driveways directly only LaBore Road. The Planner reviewed the dimensions of the two proposed lots pointing out that they comply with the City's R-1 standards for property divisions resulting in two lots. One proposed lot would he 78.6 feet wide and have 10,505 square feet of area while the other would be 78.12 feet wide and 9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 12,275 square feet of area. The Planner noted that the platting of property resulting in three lots or more have larger minimum standards of 85 feet of lot width and 11,000 square feet of area. The Planner noted that the property would continue to maintain a significant amount of slope from LaBore Road, and a retaining wall is proposed on the westerly lot on both sides of the proposed structure. This wall is necessary to accommodate access to the garage due to the steep grades. The Planner noted that under the Subdivision Code the City can consider whether the necessity for significant retaining walls such as this can affect the reasonableness of the subdivision. The Planner reported that the primary concern relative to this proposed subdivision is storm water and how it will affect the neighboring property to the south. He indicated that the lot sizes as proposed under the proposed subdivision meet R-1 District requirements. The Planner recommended approval of the subdivision as proposed subject to the City Engineer's comments and recommendations relative to storm water controls and the grading plan for the property. The City Engineer reviewed his February 6, 2015 report outlining his review of the Storm Water Management, Erosion Control and Utility Plan that was submitted for this property. The City Engineer indicated that while the storm water treatment plan proposed meets standard requirements, his concern is where water will go when leaving the storm water pond. He also pointed out that he is recommending that the storm water calculations be revised and resubmitted based on the comments in his report including the use of the new Atlas 14 rainfall events. He noted that currently storm water runoff drains south onto private property and pointed out that the development plan as submitted does not change this condition. The Engineer noted the new development will result in more impervious surface. However, under the new plan discharge rates are maintained or lowered for the proposed conditions of a 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year event. During smaller rain events, the overall volume of water discharged from the site will be lowered. During large rain events, the discharge volume will increase, which could adversely affect the property owner to the south, The City Engineer stated that he has concerns relative to the discharge of storm water onto the private property to the south without an improved means of conveyance to a public right- of-way or easement. He indicated that his recommendation would be that the applicant be directed to work with the adjacent property owner to ensure storm water conveyance does not negatively impact 715 Keller Parkway. With regard to the proposed storm water ponds, the City Engineer indicated that there should be cross easements for these ponds as well as a maintenance agreement put in place. The City Engineer -2- 10 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 indicated that the pond would not receive public water; therefore, the City would not take on the maintenance of this pond. Ledin asked if there would be an increase in impervious surface. The City Engineer estimated that the impervious surface would be a little more than double what previously existed. Currently the only impervious surface on the lot comes from the abandoned driveway that still remains. Richard Rathge, 711 Keller Parkway, reported that they purchased their property about a year and a half ago and chose their property because of the community attention to green space and maintaining existing habitat. Rathge indicated that the property at 716 LaBore Road had mature trees and is about a half -acre in size. I -Ie felt that subdivision of the property into two Lots would have a negative impact on green space and habitat. He reviewed the slope of the property, and indicated that the biggest concern is drainage. Rathge also indicated that the property owner immediately south of 716 LaBore Road is on vacation and could not attend this meeting. Rathge felt that the proposed development would be of significant for this property owner. Jerry Carlson, Exceptional Homes by Design, indicated that he would like the property subdivided into two lots. Carlson indicated that the alternative would be to leave the lot as one, but construct a very large house on the property. The net result would likely be the same amount of impervious surface. Carlson noted the storm water pond proposed at the back of the property. Carlson indicated that he was open to installing a pipe to direct run-off to Keller Parkway, but he was not sure the owner at 715 Keller Parkway would be receptive to that. Duray asked where the run-off currently goes. Carlson reported that run- off currently Mows to the back of the 716 LaBore Road property and into 715 Keller Parkway toward 711 Keller Parkway into the heavily wooded area between the Keller Parkway homes. Carlson stated that this situation is not being changed, but indicated that the installation of the rain water gardens at the back of the 716 LaBore Road property will improve the current situation. Duray asked if a large amount of fill will be brought into 716 LaBore Road. Carlson reported that there would be a lot of fill brought into the property, but noted that the two houses will be walk -outs. The driveways for the two homes will be either even with or a foot or two lower than LaBore Road. Duray asked about the rain water gardens at the back of the lots. Carlson indicated that the rain water gardens will extend across the back of both -3- 11 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 lots. He stated that there will be a maintenance agreement and cross - easements in place for these gardens. Schwalbach asked if the water from these proposed lots will first go into the rain water gardens and then diverted into the wooded area between the Keller Parkway homes or will it all flow directly onto 715 Keller Parkway. The City Engineer pointed out that he is requiring that the developer revise and resubmit storm water calculations based on the new Atlas 14 rainfall events. The Engineer indicated that the storm water pond will maintain runoff from up to a 100 -year event and will then discharge water at a little less than the current rate. The Engineer indicated that during larger events the discharge volume will increase, which could adversely affect the property owner to the south. The Engineer indicated that based on his review of the grading plan, it appears that the lots are proposed to be graded so that water is directed toward the middle of the lot at 715 Keller Parkway and toward the house itself. The Engineer indicated that his recommendation that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner at 715 Keller Parkway is an effort to eliminate that situation. Buesing asked if during a 100 -year event the rain water garden would stay full longer and then discharge as the current rate that run-off occurs onto 715 Keller Parkway. The Engineer replied that the discharge rate will be a little less but that the discharge will occur over a longer period of time, Ledin asked the cost to directly bore and install a pipe to Keller Parkway. Carlson estimated the cost to be in the $5,000 to $7,000 range. Carlson indicated that he is willing to install such a pipe. The City Engineer indicated that the installation of this pipe would alleviate his concerns given that run-off would be directed to the public right-of-way and not toward someone's house. He noted that the property owner to the south would have to grant an easement for this pipe. Murphy asked if there were any other options that could be considered. The City Engineer indicated that another option would be to make the storm water pond larger. Buesing asked if installing a pipe and discharging into the public right-of- way would direct run-off essentially where it is going now. The City Engineer stated that in theory that is correct, the change is that the run-off would be piped and would not be running across 715 Keller Parkway. The Engineer informed the applicant to it may be necessary to obtain a County permit given Keller Parkway is a County road. He also suggested that the applicant check with the Watershed as well. -4- 12 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 The City Planner indicated that providing for positive drainage away from a house is a building code requirement. Duray asked Carlson's feeling about enlarging the storm water pond rather than installing a pipe. Carlson indicated that he was open to considering a larger pond but indicated that he would have to consider the impact on the back yard area for the two new houses. Carlson stated that he would like to review that option with his engineer. Duray asked the current proposed backyard setback for the two new houses. Carlson estimated it at 40 to 50 feet, but noted that the storm water pond takes up a portion of that back yard. Chuck Peelunann, 735 Keller Parkway, indicated that there are issues with run-off in this area given the slope from LaBore Road down to Keller Parkway. Pechmann reported that the prior owners of his property informed him of the loss of the integrity of soils in the area and the loss of some trees due to a past large rainwater event. Pechmann asked if the developer was aware of the fact that there are some public utilities that run across 716 LaBore Road. Pechmann thought that the gas line for his home runs across this property and into the back of his house. Pechmann suggested that these utilities be considered when either the storm water pond or a drainage pipe installed. Carlson stated that he was aware of this and stated that he would have to pay for their relocation and provide new easements if it is necessary to move these utilities. Schwalbach asked if Pechmann was aware of the impact of storm water drainage on existing homes. Pechmann indicated that he tore down his existing house and rebuilt given the foundation on the existing house was in poor condition and a part of it was lost due to storm water runoff. Pechmamt indicated that there is a lot of water than runs down from LaBore Road to Keller Parkway. Pechmann stated that he understands the City's Comprehensive Plan and the need for development. He indicated that he just wanted to make sure that whatever is approved is for the benefit of everyone and there are no negative impacts. Schwalbach asked if Pechmann was aware of how run-off currently impacts 715 Keller Parkway. Pechmann stated that it was his understanding that current runoff funnels directly toward the house at 715 Keller Parkway. Schwalbach asked if the development of one house on 716 Lal3ore Road would come before the Planning Commission. The City Planner replied that it would not, provided that all setbacks and building code requirements are met. The City Engineer indicated that storm water -5- 13 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 requirements would be triggered depending on the amount of disturbance for a lot. The Engineer estimated that the development of even one house on this lot would trigger those requirements. There was discussion about Carlson's ability to work out an agreement with the property owner of 715 Keller Parkway for an easement to install a drainage pipe through this property to Keller parkway. Carlson again indicated his willingness to install the pipe but was not hopeful that he could work out an agreement with the property owner. Duray asked details for the retaining wall proposed for the westerly parcel. Carlson indicated that it is hoped the retaining wall will be less than 4 feet in height, but indicated that the details are dependent on the final design of the house that will be constructed on that lot. Rathge asked if there will be standing water in the storm water pond, and indicated that he was concerned about the pond being a breeding ground for mosquitos. Rathge also noted the large trees on this lot and asked how many would be removed. Rathge was also concern about the impact of storm water drainage on his house. The City Planner reported that the Code allows for trees to be removed to accommodate grading of the property for the construction of a house and parking area. The City Planner indicated that any other tree removal would be subject to the City's Tree Replacement requirements. Schwalbach noted that with rain water gardens there is typically standing water for just a short period of time. The City Engineer agreed indicating that the gardens are required to drain within 48 hours. If a rain water garden does not drain in that period of time, it is not functioning properly and corrections must be made. Rathge again expressed concern about the loss of green space. He also pointed out that the resulting two lots will be some of the smallest in the community. Polly Faschinger, 711 Keller Parkway, noted the references to storm water pond and rain water garden, and asked if these were one and the same. The City Engineer replied that they were. The pond proposed is actually an infiltration pond that will provide rate control. Faschinger indicated that the owner of 715 Keller Parkway has very strong feelings about her property and there are been some negative interactions with her and the developer of 716 LaBore Road. Faschinger stated that it would be her hope that the City would reach out to the owner of 715 -6- 14 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 Keller Parkway and talk to her directly about the proposed property division. Duray asked the proposed pond size. The City Engineer estimated it to be 15 to 20 feet wide and about 130 feet long. Peclunann indicated that there are a couple of trees that exist in the same area proposed for the storm water pond. Pechmann asked if these trees would be replace. The Planner again noted that the developer will be required to comply with the City's Tree Replacement requirements. Duray stated that he has concerns about run-off from 716 LaBore Road onto the adjacent property, and noted that the City has not heard from the owner of 715 Keller Parkway. Duray suggested that perhaps the matter should be tabled by the Commission to give the property owner additional time to comment. The City Planner pointed out that the City is required to provide mailed notice on matters such as this to all property owners within 350 feet. He also noted that the City does not have a practice of contacting certain property owners given it does not want to make a discretionary decision about who to personally contact or not. The City Planner stated that he would be reluctant to recommend tabling action on this matter based on an adjacent property owner not providing comment. However, if there is an issue that the Commission is uncomfortable with and would like additional information, the Planner felt that was an adequate reason to table action. Schwalbach asked the options that were available in the event the developer talks to the owner of 715 Keller Parkway and she is not willing to grant an easement to pipe runoff through her property. Duray asked if increasing the size of the storm water pond was the only option. The City Engineer indicated that there may be other options such as installing a storm water pipe across 711 Keller Parkway rather than 715 Keller Parkway. The Engineer suggested a conditional approval by the Planning Commission and if a pipe across 715 Keller Parkway is not possible, staff can come back with different solutions. Schwalbach again pointed out that if the property was not being subdivided, the matter of storm water drainage may not be before the Planning Commission. Schwalbach felt that if the plan proposed does not make the storm water issue any worse, then he did not see a reason to not approve it. Schwalbach did feel, however, that the applicant should try to work out a solution with the owner of 715 Keller Parkway. _7_ 15 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 Ledin indicated that he agreed with Schwalbach's comments and felt the developer should try to obtain agreement with 715 Keller Parkway to put in a storm water drainage pipe. Without such an agreement, either the proposal as submitted should be approved or a staff should make a recommendation for another option. The City Engineer again pointed out that given the topography of the lot, even if a property division was not proposed, the applicant would need a fill permit in order to build anything on this lot. Part of the review for a fill permit would be a review of storm water management issues. Schwalbach recommended approval of the subdivision of 716 LaBore Road into two single-family lots as proposed by Jerry Carlson, Exceptional Homes by Design, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner and the City Engineer as outlined in their reports and encouraging Jerry Carlson to make efforts to worth with the property owner at 715 Keller Parkway to install a drainage pipe through this property to pipe the drainage to Keller Parkway. Motion seconded by Murphy. Motion carried 7 — 0. The City Planner noted that all agenda materials are on the City's web site; therefore, interested parties can review the same detailed reports that are available to the Planning Commission. ADJOURN There being no further business, Ledin adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respect ully submitte Kat Glanz City Clerk 16 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www.ctlittle-canada.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Keis & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: February 20, 2015 RE: Municipal Consent — MnPass Phase II MAYOR John Keis COUNCIL Rick Montour Michael McGraw Tom Fischer Christian Torkelson ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson At our workshop of January 14th, we learned that the above referenced project has little construction impacts on our community (see copy of minutes attached). Pending any testimony at Wednesday's hearing, we are likely in position to pass a resolution granting municipal consent to this project. Given our past discussions, I'm not recommending any conditions. (MnDot does have some uncompleted items from MnPass Phase I that were part of our municipal consent for that portion of the project. If you would like to take a different approach with this, please let me know ASAP so we can modify the resolution accordingly. RESOLUTION NO. Resolution for Layout Approval At a Meeting of the City Council of the City of Little Canada, held on the 25th day of February, 2015, the following Resolution was offered by and seconded by to wit: WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for State Project 6281-47 on Interstate Highway 35E, from Little Canada Road to County Road J within Ramsey County; and seeks the approval thereof, as described in Minnesota Statutes 161.162 to 161.167: and WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the North Area Metropolitan District Office of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, being marked as Layout No. XXXX, S.P. XXXX-XX, from R.P. XX+xxx to XX+xxx. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said final layout for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be and is hereby approved. Upon the call of the roll the following Council Members voted in favor of the Resolution: The following Council Members voted against its adoption: Adopted this 2C day of February, 2015 By: John Keis, Mayor ATTEST: By: Joel R. Hanson, City Administrator State of Minnesota County of City of I do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Minnesota at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the minutes of said meeting in my possession. (SEAL) City Clerk day of 20 as shown by the MN PASS PHASE II PROJECT MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA JANUARY 14, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a workshop meeting of the City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the 14th day of January, 2015 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Mayor John Keis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and the following members of the City Council were present at roll call: CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member ALSO PRESENT: City Administrator Public Works Supt. MN DOT MN DOT MN DOT City Clerk Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. John Keis Tom Fischer Michael McGraw Rick Montour Christian Torkelson Joel R. Hanson Bill Dircks Sheila Kauppi Dale Gade Dave Herzog Kathy Glanzer The purpose of tonight's workshop meeting is to review the parameters of the MnPASS Phase II workshop as well as any impacts to the City from this project and outstanding issues related to other recent MN DOT projects in Little Canada. Dale Gade reported that MnPASS Phase II would extend along 35E from the north side of Little Canada Road to County Road J. He described the project in detail, noting that there would be minimal impacts within the City of Little Canada. Those impacts would primarily consist of lane restriping and MnPASS signage installation. Gade indicated that given the additional capacity that the improvement would provide to 35E, there will be the need to install additional sound walls in Little Canada. Gade reported on the new voting process that is in place relative to sound walls indicating that people will have the opportunity to vote out a sound wall. The City Administrator noted that under the Phase I project, the Natures Way property owners opted not to have a sound wall. He also explained the history of the lack of a sound wall adjacent to the Quebec Apartments, and indicated that the Phase II project will provide the opportunity for this wall to be added back in. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 14, 2015 Gade indicated that MN DOT plans to hold the bid opening for the Phase II project in March of 2016 and planned to have the project completed by the Fall of 2016. Gade indicated that as a separate project, MN DOT is repainting/coating the existing noise walls along 35E that have experienced paint problems. Montour asked if there would be any ramp closures as part of the Phase II project. Gade replied that there would not be. With regard to costs, Gade reported that the project is estimated at $17 million including additional noise walls at about $3 million. There was extensive discussion about the peeling paint on the noise walls that were installed as part of the Unweave The Weave process and the fact that MN DOT had committed to addressing this problem. Gade reported that MN DOT has hired a consultant to determine the best course of action to resolve the problem. That solution may be to coat the walls with a thicker vinyl -type coating. There are discussions with various companies such as Rhinoshield and Sherwin Williams relative to solutions. There are also some test patches out on the walls to assist in the evaluation of various coating systems. Gade also reported on some bidding issues which delayed the walls being repainted. Fischer asked if the paint condition has negatively impacted the life span of the walls. Kauppi indicated that there has been some wall replanking done, and more will be done, if necessary. Torkelson asked if MN DOT has experience this problem on any other projects. Gade indicated that the problem appears to be that MN DOT's spec called for pressure washing of the walls prior to painting. The contractor then proceeded to paint the walls without allowing them to dry would, and the contractor's contention is that the spec required no specific dry -out period. Gade reported that MN DOT has modified this spec. McGraw asked if noise wall requirements have changed. Gade did not believe the science related to noise wall needs/effectiveness had changed, but pointed out that the process is more public given their ability to opt out of a wall. McGraw asked about walls relative to commercial buildings. Gade indicated that there is a higher threshold that triggers noise walls adjacent to commercial properties. There are also various standards for visibility of businesses depending on the type of business. The City Administrator again pointed out that a noise wall adjacent to Quebec Apartments is likely back in as the result of this project. He also indicated the need for noise walls for two to three homes on Twin Lake Trail. The Administrator pointed out that the higher ground where the noise wall would be most effective is under private ownership. However, 2 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 14, 2015 the property owners impacted would likely be willing to grant easements for these noise walls. The Administrator noted that these walls are outside the boundaries of this project, but there will be an opportunity to address them in the "Corridors of commerce" project on 694 in 2017. The Administrator reported that another issue that needs to be reviewed/addressed is staining that has occurred on the concrete retaining walls. The Administrator pointed out that Mayor Blesener and the Vadnais Heights Mayor had raised this issue repeated. He indicated that he would forward pictures of the problem to the MN DOT representatives. Montour agreed and noted that these stained walls result in a poor appearance as people are driving through Little Canada. Montour stated that Little Canada should receive the treatment that other parts of the Metro area receive. Kauppi indicated that she would have someone evaluate this problem. The City Administrator then noted that the Phase II project has limited impacts on Little Canada. He did not the concerns that have been expressed relative to the concrete batch plant location, but indicated that the Phase I location was better than the location the contractor had proposed in Ryan Industrial Park. Montour stated that it was his opinion that the batch plant location on the freeway impacted traffic given trucks were using local streets to leave and return to the batch plant. There was extensive discussion about the batch plant location for Phase II which Herzog indicated would likely be in the same general area, but on the west side of the freeway. He noted the conflicts that can occur when multiple contractors share these locations. Therefore, it is likely that the two contractors would continue to have separate concrete batch plants. Fischer asked if MN DOT could restrict certain routes for the concrete trucks. Herzog indicated that routes can be restricted through the posting of weight limits. However, the posting of State Aid Streets must conform to State Aid regulations. The Administrator noted that the City does not have the ability to post County Roads, but it may be possible to work with the County on that issue. Gade also suggested that weight limit enforcement could be stepped up. Herzog also suggested that the Public Works Superintendent attend the MOT meetings with the contractors. Issues of concern can be raised with the contractors at these meetings. The Administrator indicated that another issue of concern is reimbursement to the City for the Little Canada Road bridge enhancement. He reviewed the history of this issue, and the subsequent agreement with MN DOT to reimburse the City its expenditure of $76,000 through a cooperative agreement with Ramsey County. The Administrator reported that he discussed this issue with the County Engineer who has indicated 3 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 14, 2015 that he is prepared to work with MN DOT and Little Canada to resolve this issue. The Administrator also noted that there is brush growing through the Country Drive freeway fence along the stretch from Little Canada Road through the Water Works that needs to be cleaned. He suggested that this was a maintenance issue for MN DOT that should be resolved and was a condition of our consent on Phase I. He also pointed out that the City has either a collapsed or separate pipe along Country Drive, just north of Little Canada Road, that the City would like to repair. Coordinating this work with the Phase II project would result in a cost savings for the City. Kauppi indicated that they would like at both these issues. The Administrator thanked MN DOT for working with Rocky Waite to get Savage Lake dredging accomplished. Kauppi indicated that MN DOT will also be doing a project on 694 from Rice Street to Lexington in 2017. The Administrator pointed out the need for the improvement of the Rice Street Bridge, which does not appear to be a part of this project. Kauppi indicated that the County is pursuing funding for the bridge improvement. The Administrator noted the retaining wall work that is planned along Canabury Drive and its impact on our local streets in this area. There was considerable discussion about minimizing road closures in this area, given the impact to residents especially in light of train traffic. Herzog explained the project in detail, and noting that the goal is to work as quickly as possible to minimize that impact. He also noted that pile driving would occur during the day -time hours, thus minimizing noise impacts to residents. The Council requested that detailed information be sent to residents in the area explaining the project, project schedule, and providing contact numbers that residents could call to report any issues that might arise. The Administrator reported that at this evening's meeting, the Council is being asked to call a public hearing to consider municipal consent for the Phase II project. He indicated that he would prepare a list of any issues that the City might have relative to this project to attach as a condition of approval of the Phase II project. He would continue to work with MN DOT to resolve issues related to the Unweave The Weave project and the MnPASS Phase I project. 4 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 14, 2015 ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Attest: John Keis, Mayor Joel Hanson, City Administrator 5 Municipal Consent Last Updated: December 8, 2014 HPDP / Minnesota Department of Transportation Roles and Procedures Municipal consent should only be requested from a city if it is required. (See Threshold Criteria above). Sometimes a city may choose to waive municipal consent on a specific project. In that case the city council must pass a resolution clearly identifying the project and waiving its right to municipal consent for that project. However, the typical municipal consent process is as outlined below. Procedure (for obtaining municipal consent) 1. Mn/DOT (District) submits to the city the final layout with a letter requesting city approval. The letter includes a good faith cost estimate of the city's share of the project's cost and the following (either in the letter or in an attached report): • project purpose • route location • short description of the proposed design of the highway • any additional supporting data 2. City schedules and holds public hearing (within 60 days of submittal). City must schedule within 15 days of receiving Mn/DOT's request for approval and must give 30 days public notice. 3. City passes resolution approving / disapproving (within 90 days of public hearing). After 90 from the date of the public hearing, if the city has not passed a resolution disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed approved. 4. If city disapproves, Mn/DOT decides whether to: a. Meet city's condition(s), assuming city approved with conditions: Mn/DOT writes city a letter indicating this and attaches revised layout with change(s). This ends the MC process. b. Go to the appeal process. c. Stop the project (do not build the project, or scale project down so that municipal consent is no longer required). Page 4 of 7 Municipal Consent Last Updated: December 8, 2014 HPDP / Minnesota Department of Transportation 5. If in the final plan Mn/DOT alters access, capacity or RNV, Mn/DOT must re -submit changed portion of plan for city's approval. (The city is not required to hold another public hearing and has 60 days to approve or disapprove). City Approval The city can approve either by a formal approval resolution (see generic resolution in Appendix), or by not passing a resolution disapproving the layout within 90 days of the public hearing. The city's review — with regards to layout approval — is limited to the project elements in the final layout that are within the boundaries of that city. A city cannot impose a condition on its approval that is outside of the city's boundaries. The process allows the city one opportunity to exercise approval or disapproval of the final layout (unless Mn/DOT alters the plan with regards to access, capacity, or right- of-way). Once a city approves the layout, it cannot rescind its approval later. If a city disapproves with conditions, and if Mn/DOT agrees to meet those conditions — and notifies the city in writing (including copy of revised layout) — then municipal consent has been obtained. The municipal consent statute applies to changes on "any route on the trunk highway system lying within any municipality." If a T.H. borders a city and no section of the T.H. is completely within the city limits, municipal consent is still required for any of the designated changes (access, capacity, or right of way) that do occur within that city. However, if the changes triggering the municipal consent process are on the other side of the T.H. — and thus outside the city's limits — then municipal consent is not required from that city and is not requested from that city. City Disapproval If a city disapproves the final layout, Mn/DOT can stop the project (or scale it back so that municipal consent is no longer required), or Mn/DOT can take the project to the appeal process. Page 5 of 7 Municipal Consent Last Updated: December 8, 2014 HPDP / Minnesota Department of Transportation If the city disapproves — but includes condition(s) for approval, Mn/DOT has the above options plus the option of meeting the city's condition(s), and thus obtaining the city's approval. To do this, Mn/DOT sends the city a letter to that effect with the layout attached (revised to show the change(s)). This completes the municipal consent process; Mn/DOT then has the city's approval. (Sending the letter and revised layout is NOT a resubmittal for further consideration by the city). Appeal Process The appeal process is the same for interstate and non -interstate projects. However, the Mn/DOT Commissioner is not bound by the recommendations of the appeal board with respect to interstate highways. If Mn/DOT decides to go to the appeal process, the first step is to establish an Appeal Board of three members: one member appointed by the Commissioner, one member appointed by the City Council, and a third member agreed upon by both the Commissioner and the City Council. (If a third member cannot be agreed upon, the Commissioner refers the selection to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who then has 14 days to appoint the third member). After the appeal board is established, the Commissioner refers the final layout to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board then has 30 days to hold a hearing at which the Commissioner and the City Council may present their cases for or against approval of the layout. Within 60 days after the hearing, the Appeal Board must make its recommendation regarding the final layout. The recommendation can be for: • approval, or • approval with modifications, or disapproval. The board can also make additional recommendations consistent with state and federal requirements as it deems appropriate. The board must submit a written report with its findings and recommendations to the Commissioner and the City Council. Page 6 of 7 Municipal Consent Process (8/21/07) Basic Process 1. Mn/DOT submits the final layout to the City with a letter requesting City approval of the layout. 2. The City holds public hearing within 60 days of Mn/DOT's submittal and gives a 30 -day (minimum) public notice of the hearing. o Mn/DOT presents the layout at the public hearing 3. The City Council passes a resolution approving / disapproving the layout (within 90 days of public hearing). o If after 90 days from the public hearing the City has not passed a resolution disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed approved 4. If the City approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project. 5. If the City disapproves, Mn/DOT's options are: o Make the changes requested by the City (if any) o Refer the layout to an Appeal Board o Stop the project o Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning Appeal Process 1. Mn/DOT notifies the City that it is appealing. 60 days 90 days Before Appeal: Total Maximum time = 150 days 2. An Appeal Board of three persons is established: o Mn/DOT appoints a member Undefined time to o The City appoints a member establish appeal board o Third member selected by mutual agreement between the City & Mn/DOT. o If they cannot agree, Mn/DOT requests the MN Chief Justice to select. The Chief Justice appoints the third member within 14 days of 14 days Mn/DOT's request. 3. Mn/DOT refers the final layout to the Appeal Board. 4. The Appeal Board holds a hearing (within 30 days of receiving final layout from Mn/DOT). o The City and Mn/DOT each present their case 30 days 5. The Appeal Board makes its recommendation (within 60 days of the hearing): 60 days o Approval, or o Approval with modifications, or Maximum for Appeal Process = 104 days + o Disapproval of the final layout 6. If the Board approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project. 7. If the Board disapproves, or approves with modifications, Mn/DOT's options are: o Make recommended modifications (if any), and proceed with the project o Stop the project o Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning o If it is an Interstate Highway project Mn/DOT may proceed with the project using the layout that was not approved (and sends a report to the City and the Appeal Board stating the reasons for doing so). Total Possible Time = 254 day' NOTE: Whether municipal consent was obtained through the basic MC process or through the appeal process, if the final construction plans contain changes to access, capacity, or right-of-way Mn/DOT resubmits the changed portion of the plans to the City for approval. (City has 60 days to approve). 06 "OD 0 Sr$ Presentation to the tatigESCSAISI agaaingWinatignaM SIM MEIN NM 4- cnN E E t0 O t0 O N ERINSHOMINSMINCSI Y®Y iiiM 1 German Proverb 1 About NYFS Primary Population: 5-21 year olds 10004000000001 00000006000 101000001 000011 0) Co 7.._ '6 N c 0) -o 4) _a (n to Ea) 2 -c 0 ( = cy)�°'E o, ® ®= a) 0 +E N a 5 >, O N N 20 >9 oas {0') V / I— 0 6 0. 4- Transforming lives today, creating a better tomorrow (0 1 co c a) 2 • Youth in context • Schools, homes, clinic Q c 0 N :4= N 0 O us- U o a) a) =cf) : c o a> o A U o w c Q- O a) S a) 5 o_ 0 O C O O N ® Q O = ° v >1 o co >- 0 co no a) :-' cii 1 --- Lu z 0 w ct • Milieu therapy If elffittl8M6.48=81MidIDalatla Contracted Services O r CO r 10 CN CO co O r CO r c O N L 0) 0 O O O CO ti Eft Senior Chore (seniors/youth) 10 0 O r O 9 O What your support buys 100010110110101600118011 11.1110111101118111 11091111111110 MOM Services for residents are assured cnN 0 CO • • attainment Educationa Leverage outside resources Aging population — routine chores c iI mproving economy — NYFS Partnerships • Communities > c E E 0 0 -c • Businesses 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www.ci.little-canada.inn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Keis & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: February 20, 2015 RE: Resolution Establishing Fire Escrow Account MAYOR John Keis COUNCIL Rick Montour Michael McGraw Toni Fischer Christian Torkelson ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson Sonie cities have experienced problems with fire damaged properties in getting them cleaned up in a timely manner. (We had a situation like this in the early 90's.) The City Attorney has advised us that we may want to utilize Minnesota Statutes Chapter 65A.50 which authorizes cities to establish a "fire escrow account" whereby we can receive insurance settlement proceeds to ensure a property is restored to an acceptable condition. 'Phis account is funded by receipt of 25% of the insured value of the damaged property or 25% of the settlement, whichever is less. (See excerpts from League of Cities publication dealing with dangerous properties). By enacting this resolution and notifying the Commissioner of Commerce, we are then in a position to act promptly if a damaged property situation arises and give us more ability to ensure the damaged property is properly addressed. Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution as presented. 1 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -2 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FIRE ESCROW ACCOUNT PURSUANT TO Minn. Stat. § 65A.50 WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 65A.50 ("the statute") authorizes a city to establish a trust or escrow account to receive a portion of insurance settlement proceeds from a claim on real property located in the city that is damaged by fire or explosion. WHEREAS, the proceeds received by the City are used as security to ensure that the damaged property is repaired, replaced, removed, or demolished and brought into compliance with the City Code. WHEREAS, the City finds that damaged structures may violate existing health or safety standards which endanger the public health, safety, and welfare if the damaged structures are not repaired, replaced, or removed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 65A.50, the City Council of Little Canada does hereby establish an escrow account to receive a portion of insured real property fire or explosion settlement proceeds as prescribed by the statute. 2. That the City of Little Canada intends to uniformly apply Minn. Stat. § 65A.50 with respect to all property located within the city. 3. That the City Administrator be authorized to proceed to establish the escrow account as provided for in the statute. 4. That the City Administrator give the required written notification to the commissioner of Commerce of the city's intention to apply Minn. Stat. § 65A.50 and the establishment of the escrow account. 5. That the City Administrator is authorized to execute affidavits certifying violations of health and safety standards as required by Minn. Stat. § 65A.50, subd. 3. 6. That the City Administrator is authorized to receive reasonable proof that damaged or destroyed portions of an insured structure are repaired, replaced, or removed or that an insured has entered into a contract for repair, replacement, or removal of the damaged portions as required by Minn. Stat. § 65A.50, subd. 8. 2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Little Canada on February 25, 2015. Approved: John Keis, Mayor Attested: Joel Hanson, City Administrator RELEVANT LINKS: Shim. Stat.. 4039y. ?lion. Sun. ,: 46311. Slain. Stat. n 163.161. SI inn. Sial. SS 429,361• -129.1)81. 1.NIC infoilllail011111C1110, 1'pnnJ.larrsomn l l,;uuln \9 inn Stat. S 6 'till. tId, 12. 1.4. NI inn. Stat. 65A.50. souls. Nl nm. Stat. g 65A 30. solids. 12, 11. Department of Commerce Lin of Insurnncc l:;a<'tma L; 3 fnniripoliies kir Drhris Rommit- NI inn. Stat. @ 65A.30, sn6d. 13161 See Section V-11 Discontinuing the atcottnl. The costs incurred by the city may be charged against the property as a special assessment. The city council may provide that the assessment may be paid in five or fewer equal annual installments with interest at 8 percent per year. It is a good idea to keep an accurate record of the incurred costs so the city can accurately assess them. An alternative to using a special assessment is to recover the costs by obtaining a court judgment against the property owner. V. Buildings damaged by fire or explosion Sometimes, there is a fire or explosion in a city that damages a building. If the owner does not make the necessary repairs to the property, the responsibility sometimes may fall to the city. If the building was insured, it may be an option for the city to receive a portion of the insurance settlements from the damage if the city has established an escrow or bust account for this purpose. A. Establishing the account In order to obtain a portion of the insurance settlements from fire or explosion damage, the city must first establish an escrow or trust account. It is important to note that the city cannot obtain insurance settlement proceeds for losses that happened bet2»'e the effective date of the account. The escrow or trust account is established by passing a resolution. The next step is to notify the commissioner of commerce, in writing, that the city has established a oust or escrow account and intends to uniformly apply this section with respect to all property located within the city. The city should also request to be added to the list of cities that maintain these accounts. The commissioner keeps a list of all cities with this type of account. When the commissioner receives notice that a city has established an account, the commissioner will add the city to the list. Then, the commissioner will distribute the list to all insurance companies transacting property insurance in this state, indicating the addition of the new city. The addition of the city to the List is effective on the date specified by the commissioner in the amendment. The commissioner must notify the city and insurance companies of the effective date of the addition, which cannot be less than 30 days after the receipt of notice by the insurance company. Once on the list, cities must make a written report to the commissioner on the extent of the city's use o1' the escrow account. The report must also include the effect of the use of the law on arson fires in the city. The report must be filed with the commissioner no later than 90 days after the two-year anniversary of the city's placement on the list and, thereafter, no later than 90 days after each subsequent two-year period. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/24/2013 Dangerous Properties Page 5 4 RELEVANT LINKS: M1l Ina. Sint. i (5A.sable. Mina. Stu. § OA. O. actin I um. Stat. ; 6:m.$0. sill d. . If the commissioner does not receive the written report, the commissioner will provide a written reminder notice. If the commissioner does not receive the report within 30 days after providing the written reminder, the city will be treated as having made a written request to be deleted. D. Discontinuing the account If the city no longer wishes to have the escrow or trust account and wants to be removed from the commissioner's list, the city Hurst notify the commissioner in writing that it wants to be deleted from the list. The city may stop operating the escrow or trust account for more than six months after notifying the commissioner. The city must give 30 days written notice before it stops using the account. After the commissioner receives the city's written request, the commissioner shall prepare and distribute an amendment to the list, indicating the deletion. The deletion shall be effective on the date specified by the commissioner in the amendment. The commissioner must then notify the city and insurance companies of the effective date of the deletion, which must be not less than 30 days after the insurance companies receive notice. A city must continue to use its escrow or trust account for any loss which occurs before the effective date of the deletion. C. Funding and using the account Once the city has set up the account, it cannot use it unless there is an insured building in the city that has been damaged by fire or explosion. liven then, the account is only used after the statutory process is followed. 1. Funding the account When a property owner files a claim fbr a loss to his or her insured real property due to fire or explosion and a final settlement is reached on the loss, the insurer must withhold from payment of the settlement the lesser of 25 percent of the actual cash value of the insured's real property at the time of the loss or 25 percent of the final settlement. (The property owner with insurance is known as "the insured"). For purposes of this law, a final settlement is the determination of the amount owed to the insured by any of the following means: o Acceptance of a proof of loss by the insurer. o Execution of a release by the insured. • Acceptance of an arbitration award by both the insured and the insurer. • A court judgment. League of Minnesota Cilias Information Memo. 6/24/2013 Dangerous Properties Page 6 5 RELEVANT LINKS: alum. Suit § n5:\.50. subd>. 0. n. Minn. Slat. ° 6$:\.i0. subd. 10. 11 inn. Slat C (I5:\Sp.>ubd. r. ialum. Slat. 6 (SA.SO, subd. 2. The final settlement amount cannot include the payment of policy proceeds ibr personal property or contents damage, or for additional coverage not contained in the fire coverage portion of the fire insurance policy. Further, this process applies only to final settlements that exceed 49 percent of the insurance on the insured real property. The requirement to withhold portions of the insurance settlement proceeds does not apply if all of the following conditions occur: • Within 30 days after agreement on a final settlement between the insured and the insurer, the insured has filed with the insurer evidence of' a contract to repair. • The insured consents to the payment of funds directly to the contractor performing the repair services. e Upon receiptof the contract to repair, the insurer gives notice to the municipality in which the property is situated that there will not be a withholding under this section because of the repair contract. Funds released under these circumstances may be forwarded only to a contractor performing the repair services on the insured property. if the insured and the insurer have agreed on the demolition costs or the debris removal costs as part of the final settlement of the real property insured claim, the insurer shall withhold the largest of' the following sums: e The agreed cost of demolition or debris removal. e 'T'wenty-five percent of the actual cash value of the insured real property at the lime of loss. e Twenty-five percent of the final settlement of the insured real property claim. At the time funds are withheld, the insurer must give notice of the withholding to the treasurer of' the city where the property is located, the insured, and any bank or lender that has a lien on the property and that is named on the insurance policy. If the settlement resulted from a court judgment, notice must also be provided to the court where the judgment was entered. The notice must include: • The identity and address of the insurer. e The name and address of each policyholder, including any bank or lender that holds a mortgage on the property. • The location of the insured real property. e The date of loss, policy number, and claim number. e The amount of money withheld. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6124/2013 Dangerous Properties Page 7 6 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stan. y 65A.i0. sulxi. I6. 61i nn. Slnl. 4 65; SO, • bd.3 1hun. Sva. 65 A.S(I, suhd, 3, \tum. Sou. i 65A.50, nlbA. 4. Abun. Slat. E 65A.50, sulci 5, \I inn. Ani. 4 65A.S0, sitbd, .i, o A statement that the city may have the withheld amount paid into a trust or escrow account established for the purposes of this section if it shows cause within 30 days that the money should be withheld to protect [he public health and safety; otherwise, the withheld amount shall be paid to the insured at the expiration of 30 days. o An explanation of the provisions of this section and a verbatim reproduction of the statutory subdivision regarding exceptions to withholding. In order for the city to put the withheld funds into its escrow or trust account and retain the funds, the chief fire official or other authorized city representative must prepare an affidavit that says that the insured's damaged structure violates specified health and safety standards, and this requires the escrow of the withheld amount as surety for the repair, replacement, of removal of the damaged structure. This affidavit constitutes cause for escrowing the withheld amount. Where there is a settlement on the insurance claim, the affidavit must be sent to the insurer, the insured, and any banks or lenders who hold a mortgage on the property. Once the insurer receives the affidavit, the insurer must forward the withheld amount to the city treasurer. The insurer must also provide notice of the lorwardiug of funds to the insured and any hank or lender that holds a mortgage on the property. If there was a court judgment on the insurance claim, the affidavit and notice of forwarding the funds must also be given 10 the court that entered the, judgment. When the city receives the withheld funds from the insurance company, the city treasurer must record the information and the date the money was received. The treasurer must immediately deposit the money into the established trust or escrow account. Money deposited into the account must not be commingled with city funds. The account may be interest -hearing. Any interest earned on money placed in a trust or escrow account shall be retained by the municipality to defray expenses incurred under this section. 2. Releasing funds from the account Once the money is in the city trust or escrow account, there are several situations that trigger releasing those funds. a. Releasing funds to bank or lender If the mortgage on the insured property is in default, the hank or lender who holds that mortgage may make a written request to the city for the funds. Not later than 10 days after receiving the written request, the treasurer must release any or all of the proceeds to the extent necessary to satisfy the outstanding mortgage. I. eague of Minnesola Cities Information Memo: 6/24/2013 Dangerous Properties Page e 7 RELEVANT LINKS: Slat. @ 65,\.50, su0d. 6. I nm. Slat. $ 65A50, suhct. 6. Mimi Stat. $ o5.\.3U..ub(I. 0 hl inn. Stitt, 0, :111)(I b. Releasing funds to the insured There are two situations described in statute where the Muds in the account must be immediately forwarded to the insured. The first situation is where the chief fire official or other authorized city representative receives or is shown reasonable proof that the damaged or destroyed portions of the insured structure have been repaired or replaced. However, if not all repairs or replacement have been made, the city may withhold the amount that is needed to complete repair or replacement. The second situation is when the chief fire official or other authorized city representative receives or is shown reasonable proof that the damaged or destroyed structure and any and all remnants of the structure have been removed from the land where the structure was located. This may be done by the owner or any other person. The work must have been done in compliance with local code requirements. There is also a third situation when funds must be immediately released, but in this situation, the funds are forwarded to a third -party contractor and not the insured. in this situation, the funds deposited into the escrow or trust account must be immediately forwarded to the contractor when the chief fire official or other authorized city representative receives or is shown reasonable proof that the insured has entered into a contract to perform repair, replacement, or removal services on the property. It must also be shown that the insured consents to payment of the funds directly to the contractor performing the services. These funds may be forwarded only to a contractor performing services on the insured property. As mentioned in the three situations above, the insured must show reasonable proof in order to have the funds released or forwarded. The law provides three situations that will be considered reasonable proof: a Originals or copies of pertinent contracts, invoices, receipts, and other similar papers showing both the work performed or to be performed and the materials used or to be used by all contractors performing repair, replacement, or removal services with respect to the insured real property. An affidavit executed by the contractor who has performed the greatest amount of repair or replacement work on the structure, or who has done most of the clearing and removal work if structure repair or replacement is not to be performed. The contractor shall attach to the affidavit all pertinent contracts, invoices, and receipts and shall swear that these attached papers correctly indicate the nature and extent of the work performed to date by the contractor and the materials used. e An inspection of the insured real property to verify that repair, replacement, or clearing has been completed. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: Dangerous Properties 8 624/2013 Page 9 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www.ci.little-canackonn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Keis & Members of City Council FROM: Bill Dircks, Public Works Superintendent DATE: February 20, 2015 RE: Awarding of Low Voltage Contract for Public Works Facility MAYOR John Keis COUNCIL Rick Montour Michael McGraw Tom Fischer Christian Torkelson ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson The City of Roseville is the PI' provider for the City of Little Canada so it is providing assistance with getting the public works facility equipped with the proper cabling for internet, IP/telephony, video, and wireless access points. That work is low voltage work and was kept out of the electrical contract so that Roseville could have some control over the contractors. They have worked with many and know who does good work for reasonable prices. Quotes were received from three contractors for the public works facility work. The results are listed below: 1. ABCOM 2. Anderson Tech 3. MTG $8275.00 $6400.00 $5277.00 Based on the quotes provided Roseville and Little Canada staff recommend that the low voltage contract be awarded to MTG at a price of $5277.00. The construction budget included $10,000 for data cabling and connection fees. There may be a few other costs connected to the data cabling budget but this should be the majority of the cost so we should end up under budget on this line item. tLf1-11111G S flS U(IATtS February 20, 2015 File No. 120156E-0071 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road E. Little Canada, MN 55117-1633 RE: LITTLE CANADA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE #9 Dear Council Members: Please find attached 3 copies of Partial Pay Estimate No. 9 for the above -referenced project. As you are aware, the Contractor for the project is FPI Paving Contractors, Inc. The total amount earned by the Contractor on this partial pay estimate is $1,255,540.00. Subtracting 5% retainage of $62,777.00 and previous payments of $1,152,334.23, the amount due the Contractor is $40,428.77. The payment is for concrete pedestrian ramp work at the Interstate ramps and Centerville Road along with the signal and striping work that was added to the contract at the request of Ramsey County. We have inspected the work performed by FPI Paving Contractors, Inc. and find it to be in compliance with the plans, specifications, and contract documents. Therefore we would recommend approval of Partial Pay Estimate No. 9 in the amount of $40,428.77. Sincerely, ELFERING & ASSOCIATES ter. eto Lee Elfering, P.E. City Engineer cc: Bill Dircks, Public Works Director Ltr-110714-CC (Payment fte - LC Road) 10062 Flanders Court NE, Blaine, MN 55449 - Phone: (763) 780-0450 - Fax: (763) 780-0452 IOC HIM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE ORIGINAL: REVISED: PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE 89 FROM: November 1, 2014 TO: February 19, 2015 CONTRACTOR: FPI PAVING CONTRACTORS, INC. ADDRESS: 3230 RICE STREET, LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 OWNER: CITY OF LITTLE CANADA PROJECT: LITTLE CANADA ROAD IMPROVMENTS AMOUNT OF CONTRACT ORIGINAL: $ 1,154,113.10 REVISED: $ 1,282 464.07 ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ORIGINAL CONTRACT THIS PERIOD QTY. UNIT PRICE QTY. TOTAL PRICE TOTAL TO DATE QTY. TOTAL PRICE SCHEDULE 1.0 - LITTLE CANADA ROAD MOBILIZATION LS 7.00 55.000.00 0.00 50.00 1.00 $55000.00 H2021.501 2101,507 CLEARING ACRE 0.12 6,500.00 0.00 50.00 0.1] 51,105.00 2101.502 CLEAR 'TREE 8.00 350.00 0.00 50.00 1200 54.20000 .GRUBBING GRUBBING 0.12 6,500.00 0.00 50.00 0.17 51.10500 2101.507 GRUB TREE 8.00 250.00 0,00 50.00 13.00 53,250.00 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM LE 45,00 16.80 0.00 50.00 58.00 5974.40 At 2104,501 4,501 _2704.501 2100x03 REMOVE FENCE IF 940.00 16000 6.40 5.00 000 0.00 50.00 50.00 1007,00 56,956.80 160,00 5815.00 REMOVE GUARDNL IF SP 80.00 3.3.3.3._.• 230.00 _55.50__ ��4.50 _0.00__ ���������'�000 -__50.00 �--- 5000--84.00 _ 80, 00 54370.00 $378.00 REMOVE RETAINING WALL BE2104.503 2104,505 REMOVE LANDSCAPING SF SY 1,100.00 1.65 _ 0.00 50.00 1100,0D 51,815.00 RC"i'j 710.00 7.00 0.00 50.00 112000 $7.04000 M2104.509 ®REMOVE 2104,509 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1,900.00 5.00 0.00 50.00 1822,00 $9,110.00 REMOVE POLE BASE EACH Mani 1,000.00 0.00 50.00 2.00 52,000.00 REMOVE FLAG POLE EACH EACH EACH EACH MEM MEM 4.00 1.00 500.00 1.890.00 505.00 1,765.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MEM man MEM 1111111111E3 54000,00 53,780.00 52,02000 51,76500 1 REMOVE HYDRANT 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE Eis 2104.509 REMOVE VALVE _ _19 2104.511 SAW CUT CONCRETE (FULL DEPTH. SAW CUT BITUMINOUS FULL DEPTH SALVAGE SIGN IF 100,00 2.65 0,00 $0.00 304,00 5805.60 20 mlampl 2104.513 LF EACH 850.00 33.00 2.35 1r 0,00 0,00 $0.00 $0.00 1010,00 33.00 52,373,50 5858.00 11111111111SEEMISALVAGE BANNER POLE EACH 2.00 500.00 0.00 50.00 2,00 51,000.00 2704.618 SALVAGE PAVERS SP 905.00 5.00 0.00 $0.00 1013,00 $5,065.00 2704.523 SALVAGE MAILBOX EACH 14.00 36.75 0.00 $0.00 1000 5367.50 25 r r COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 2,130,00 23.00 000 $0.00 2130.00 548.99000 26 2705.501 POND EXCAVATION (RAINWATER GARDENS)(P) CY 345,00 30.00 0,00 $0.00 345,00 510,350.00 27 2105,525 TOP SOIL BORROW (CV) CY 850.00 40.00 0.00 50.00 409,00 516.360.00 28 2105.607 SUBGRADE CORRECTION CY 1.910.00 23.00 0.00 50.00 882.45 520,296.35 29 2712,001 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RD STA 24,00 250.00 0.00 S0.00 24.00 56,000.00 30 2511,607 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION GAL CY 1,000.00 800.00 265.00 3.00 linlinalan 20.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 0,00 $0.00 ® 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE. CLASS 5 $0.00® 50.00 200.00 $382.38 $4.000,00 ®w 33 2211,607 AGGREGATE BASE PLACED (SIDEWALK) AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CY 685.00 15.00 0.00 50,00 600.00 $9.000,00 34 2504,602 MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 7,300.00 1.80 0,00 50.00 7462.00 513.431.60 ®taara 2350.501 RECLAIM BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 10,100.00 ® 0.00 50.00 10700.00 521.715,00 TYPE SPWE8340E WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TON 74500 75.00 0,00 50.00 681.96 551,147,00 2350 50 TON 2.155,00 75.00 0.00 50.00 2722.03 5204.152.25 EillEnTYPE SPWEB340C WEARING COURSE MIX DRIVEWAY ® •EAC_H LT LF LF 550.00 1.900,00 _ 100 _ 3000 10.00 21.00 100.00 36.00 1,21000 1500 ®0 61.00 0.00 0,00 00 0.00 000 0,00 $0.00® $0.00 __ _ _ __ - $000 5000 50.00 197513 D 3...3.3.,3. _ 1.00 0.00 0.00 553,636.00 $71,104.68 mEMEn BLOCK RETAINING WALL SPECIAL WET CAST 40 47 42 44 f. 2502541 2503.511 2503.511 12" RC_FLAREO END SECTION W/TRASHGUARD •_ 51 250.00 50.00 8 0 10" DIP STORM SEWER 5000 50.00 23.00 51,403.00 44 2503.521 22" SPAN RC PIPE -ARCH SEWER CILIA LF 34.00 55.65 000 50.00 34.00 51,892,10 45 IIEMEall PIPE SEWER DES 3006, CLV LE 172.00 3255 0.00 50.00 175.00 46 MIMI 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006, CLV LP 427.00 33.60 0.0D $0.00 1r 514,179.20 47 16° RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006, CLIII LF 746.00 35.70 0.00 0.00 $0,00® 50.00 1.00 526,917.80 51,545.00 m m' 50 51 52 2503,602 2503.802 2503,602 3.603_ 2503.603 EACFI 4.00 1,54500 8"X4" PV WYE 4 PVC PIPE .__._..____..._ EACH EACH LF EACH 2.00 1.00 6.00 1,945.00 2,025.00 41.00 1.680.00 0.00 $0.00 3,00 55.835.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 • 50.00 50.00 1,00 52,02500 ___53.89000 • 52,28480 __90.00 7.36 2504,602 W EMAISEWER WATERMAIN FITTING INSPECTION 4.00 _ 53 4� ® 2504.602 2504.602 2504.602 WATER SERVICE CONNECTION EACI'I2.00 EACH EACH _ 7.00 _ _ rr 1,585.00 _!!,145.00 6,225.00 0.00 _60_600.006060- 0,00 50.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 51,58500 54,145.00 IN STALL HYDRANT AND VALVE 50.00 50.00 512,450.00 56 2504,602 ADJUST VALVE EACH 2.00 350.00 0,00 50.00 1700 55,950,00 57 2504,602 WM FITTING BOLT REPLACEMENT EACH 1.00 1,230.00 0.00 50,00 0,00 50.00 58 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 1.00 3,940.00 0,00 50.00 1,00 53,940.00 59 2504,603 11/2" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LF EACH 55.00 1,00 46.00 1.490.00 000 0,00 50.00 50,00 41.00 2.00 51,886.00 52,900.00 G0 2506,502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 24"X36" 61 2503.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 464020 EACH 10.00 2,235.00 0,00 50.00 16.00 535,760.00 62 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME RING AND CASTING EACH EACH CY 16.00 FF 10.00 550.00 1.605.00 110.00 0 O 0.00 0,00 50.00 50.00 50.00 73.00 1,10 $7,150.00 51,605,00 5121.00 63 2506.602 RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLE 64 2511.502 RANDOM RIP RAP, CLASS IV 0 86 67 2511.607 2521,501 GRANULAR BEDDING SPECIAL CV P 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK CY SF 125.00 15,600.00 50.00 2.90 0.00 867,00 50.00 52,572.30 0.00 50,00 1332100 538,630.90 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 8612 LP 200.00 19.70 0.00 50.00 542.00 510.677,40 68 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624 LF 5,100.00 73.40 0.00 5000 5600,00 $75,040.00 ITEM NO. 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ORIGINAL CONTRACT QTY. UNIT PRICE THIS PERIOD QTY. TOTAL PRICE TOTAL TO DATE QTY. TOTAL PRICE 69 2531.507 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON (6" THICK) SY 6500 4460 0.00 50.00 72.20 53,241,76 70 2531.507 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON (8'' THICK) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT (6" THICK) SY SY 65.00 140.00 54.30 44.90 0.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 90.10 79.70 34.89743 33,570.53 71 2531.507 72 2531.602 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP (6" THICK) SF 2,300.00 5.00 795.00 53,975.00 2668.30 513,341.50 73 74 2531.618 ____�... 2531,618 TRUNCATED DOMES _.._E.ED 1.33' WIDE COLORED CONCRETE SF SF 276.00 1,360.00 3.6.50 ...,._..- 7.10 122,00 -��0.00 54.453,00 --�-- $0.00 254.00 1697,00 $9.271,00 312,048.70 75 2531,618 COLORED CONCRETE SF 1,050.00 7.10 0.00 30.00 1126.00 57,994,60 76 2540.602 INSTALL MONUMENT EACH 3.00 735.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 77 2540.602 INSTALL SALVAGED BANNER POLE EACH 2,00 2,000,0D 0.00 30.00 0.00 50.00 51,050.00 78 2540.002 INSTALL SALVAGED MAILBOXES EACH 14.00 105.00 0.00 30,00 10.00 79 2540.603 LANDSCAPE EDGER LF 250.00 10.00 0.00 50,00 143.00 51,430.00 80 2545.802 ADJUST LIGHT EACH 1,00 1,500.00 0.00 0,00 8000 50.00 1.00 160,00 51,500.00 53,200.00 61 2557.603 INSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 160.00 20.00 82 2557.603 INSTALL SPILIT RAIL FENCE LF 130.00 40.00 0.00 50.00 155,00 56,200.00 83 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1,00 19.42500 0.00 50.00 1.00 519,425.00 84 2564.531 F & I SIGN PANEL SF 250,00 26.25 0,00 30,00 168.13 34,413.41 85 2564.602 F & I SIGN POST EACH 47.00 52,50 0,00 50.00 50.00 28.00 745.00 51,470,00 52,235.00 06 2573.502 SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE 511000 LP 1,500.00 3.00 0.00 87 2573,52 SEDIMENT REMOVALBACKHOE FIR 30.00 175.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 $0.00 80 2573.53 INLET PROTECTION (WIMCO) EACH 19 21.00 200.00 0.00 50.00 43.00 58,600.00 89 2573,53 INLET PROTECTION (STRUCTURE W/0 CASTING) EACH EACH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 8612 17.00 54.00 150,00 75,00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 13.00 21.00 51,05000 51,575.00 00 2573.602 INLET SEDIMENT REMOVAL 91 2573.607 ROADWAY ROCK CHECK DAM CY 200,00 50,00 0.00 50.00 26.65 51,332,50 92 2575.505 SODDING TYPE SALT RESISTANT SY 7,700.00 3.25 0.00 50.00 50,00 5227.50 52.00 516,989.30 93 2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE SPECIAL CY 75.00 40.00 0.00 52,060.00 94 2575.523 2575,604 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (CATEGORY 6) COMPOST GRADE 2 (SPECIAL). SY SY 480.00 650,00 1.95 10,00 0.00 0.00 30.00 50.00 450.00 235.00 5077.50 52.350.00 95 96 2575.604 SEEDING (TYPE 270) SY 480.00 1,25 0.00 50.00 750.00 593T50 97 2582.501 PAVT MSSG (LT-THRU SYMBOL) EPDXY EACH 3.00 163,00 0.00 50.00 3.00 354900 98 2562.501 2562.502 PAVT MSSG (RT TURN SYMBOL) EPDXY 4" SOLID LINE WRITE -EPDXY EACH LF 4.00 6,600.00 130.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 50.00 50,00 4,00 6600.00 5520.00 51,58400 99 100 101 2582,502 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE - EPDXY LF 300.00 0.24 0.00 50.00 300.00 372.00 2582.502 24" STOP LINE. WHITE -EPDXY LE 155.00 8.40 0.00 50,00 155.00 51.302.00 102 2582.502 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPDXY LE 6 450.00 0.48 0.00 50,00 6450.00 53,096.00 103 2582.503 CROSSWALK MARKING ' EPDXY SF 710.00 4.70 0.00 50.00 810.00 53,80700 SCHEDULE 1.0- LITTLE CANADA ROAD -- TOTAL 511,000.30 51,056.901.33 ALTERNATE 1.0 • LITTLE CANADA ROAD ALTERNATE 1 2104.509 REMOVE HYDRANT AND VALVE EACH 1.00 1.890.00 0.00 50.00 1.00 51,890.00 2 2411,618 BLOCK RETAINING WALL SPECIAL WETS EACH 600 0 1.00 6,225.00 0.00 W.00 30.00 1,00 513,869.00 56,225.00 3 2504.602 INSTALL HYDRANT AND VALVE 4 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE EACH 1.00 345,00 0.00 50.00 1.00 534560 5 2521501 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 1,080.00 3,10 0.00 50.00 745.00 52,309.50 6 2557.603 INSTALL SPLIT RAIL FENCE LE 125.00 40.00 0.00 50.00 113.00 54,520,00 ALTERNATE 1,0 -LITTLE CANADA ROAD -- TOTAL 50.00 529,158.50 SCHEDULE 2.0- CHANGE ORDERS 1 SPEC CHANGE ORDER 41 (555 LC ROAD SERVICES) LS 1.00 10,896.00 0.00 50.00 1.00 510,896.00 2 SPEC CHANGE ORDER 42 LS 1.00 1.00 13,362.79 28,015.38 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 1.00 1.00 513,362.79 528,015.38 3 SPEC CFIANGE ORDER 43 LS SCHEDULE 2.0 •CHANGE ORDERS -- TOTAL 50.00 352,274,17 SCHEDULE 3.0 - SUPPLEMENTAL 41 SIDEWALK ADDIT ON 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 57,000.00 0.00 50.00 0.50 53,500,00 2 2101.502 CLEAR TREE 4.00 3350.00 0.00 50.00 4.00 51,400.00 3 2101,507 GRUB TREE 5.00 5250,00 0.00 50.00 5.00 51.250,00 4 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 145.00 $12,00 0.00 50.00 469.00 55,626.00 5 2104.503 SALVAGE RETAINING WALL SF 40.00 $16.00 0.00 50.00 12.30 5196.80 6 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 165.00 57.50 0.00 50,00 220.00 51,650.00 7 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 375.00 55.65 0.00 50.00 493,00 52,785,45 0 2104.507 REMOVE PHONE 800111 EACH 1,00 5325.00 0.00 50.00 1.00 5325.00 9 2104,507 REMOVE SIGN BASE EACH 1.00 5110.00 0.00 50.00 1.00 5110.00 10 2104.511 SAW CUT CONCRETE (FULL DEPTH) LF 72.00 52.65 0.00 50.00 330.00 5890.40 11 2104,513 SAW CUT BITUMINOUS (PULL DEPTH) LF 250,00 52.35 0.00 50.00 952.0D 52,237.20 12 2104,523 SALVAGE SIGN EACH 3.00 526.00 0.00 $0.00 6,00 5156.00 13 2104.523 SALVAGE MAILBOX EACH 13,00 536.75 0.00 50.00 0,00 50.00 14 2105.523 SALVAGE LIGHT EACH 1.00 5650.00 0,00 50.00 1.00 5650.00 15 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY 250,00 530.00 0.00 50.00 254.00 57,620.00 16 2105.525 TOP SOIL BORROW (CV) CY 60,00 545.00 0.00 50.00 62.26 52,801.25 17 2211.601 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TON 244,00 519.50 0.00 50.00 173,14 53,376.23 18 2350.501 TYPE SPWEB340C WEARING COURSE MIX(DRIVEWAY) TON 42.00 $150.00 0.00 50.00 98.33 514,74650 19 2521.501 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 3,060.00 52.90 0.00 50.00 3888.00 511,275,20 20 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 8612 IF 100.00 519.70 0.00 50.00 61.50 51,605.55 21 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 6624 LF 65.0D 519.70 0.00 50.00 357.00 57,032.90 22 2531.507 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT(6"THICK) SY 165.00 544.90 0.00 $0.00 78.70 53 533.63 23 2531.507 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT (8" THICK) SY 110.00 554.30 0.00 50.00 173.80 59,437,34 24 2531.602 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP (6" THICK) SF 350.00 $5.00 0.0D 50.00 98.00 5490.00 25 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SF 8.00 536.50 0.00 50.00 12.00 5438,00 26 2540.602 INSTALL MONUMENT EACH 1,00 51,125.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 27 2540.802 INSTALL SALVAGED MAILBOXES EACH 13.00 5105,00 0.00 50.00 0.00 $0.00 28 2540.602 INSTALL SALVAGED LIGHT EACH 1.00 51,300.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 $0.00 29 2541.602 INSTALL SALVAGED MODULAR BLOCK WALL SF 20.00 520,00 0.00 50.00 12.30 5246.00 ITEM NO. TOTAL THIS PERIOD ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ORIGINAL CONTRACT QTY. UNIT PRICE THIS PERIOD QTY. TOTAL PRICE TOTAL TO DATE QTY. TOTAL PRICE 30 2575.505 SODDING TYPE SALT RESISTANT SY 1,070,00 53.25 0.001 90.00 697.00 32.265.25 30.00 385.649.70 SCHEDULE 3.0 -SUPPLEMENTAL #1 SIDEWALK ADDITION -- TOTAL 30.00 SCHEDULE 4.0 - SUPPLEMENTAL 42 LITTLE CANADA BRIDGE SIGNAL AND STRIPING 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 33.500.00 1.00 53.500.00 1.00 53500.00 2 2101.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SF 1,147.00 32.65 1147.00 33.03955 1147.00 33,039.55 3 2101.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL IF 1,660.00 30.90 1660.00 31.A94.00 1660.00 $1,494.00 4 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 15 EACH EACH 1.00 1,00 Ma= 34,025.00 98 500.00 38,100.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 34,025.00 38,500.00 111...$8,100.00 1.00 1.00 al 54,025.00 38,500.00 5 2565.616 REVISED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMA REVISED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS 6 2565.616 7 2582.501 PAVT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) EACH 2.00 3150.00 2.00 3300.00 2.00 3300.00 6 2582.501 PAVT MESSAGE fRT ARROW) EACH LF 1.00 1,299.00 3150.00 50.30 1.00 1299.00 3150.00 5369.70 1.00 1299.00 3150.00 3389.70 9 2562.502 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPDXY 10 2582.502 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE -EPDXY LF 199.00 $030 190.00 359.70 100.00 359.70 11 2582502 4" SOLID DOUBLE LINE YELLOW- EPDXY LF 650.00 66.00 30.55 59.35 650.00 66.00 3367.50 3617.10 650,00 6600 3357.50 3617.10 12 2582.502 24" STOP LINE WHITE - EPDXY LF 13 2582.503 CROSSWALK MARKING EPDXY SP 195.00 35.25 195.00 31,023.75 195.00 31,023.75 SCHEDULE 4.0 -SUPPLEMENTAL#2 LITTLE CANADA BRIDGE SIGNAL AND STRIPING -- TOTAL $31,556.30 331,556.30 BID SUMMARY SCHEDULE 1.0 - LITTLE CANADA ROAD -. TOTAL ALTERNATE 1.0 - LITTLE CANADA ROAD -- TOTAL SCHEDULE 2.0 -CHANGE ORDERS -- TOTAL SCHEDULE 3.0 - SUPPLEMENTAL 41 SIDEWALK ADDITION - TOTAL SCHEDULE 4.0 - SUPPLEMENTAL #2 LITTLE CANADA BRIDGE SIGNAL AND STRIPING -- TOTAL TOTAL DID SUMMARY THIS PERIOD TOTAL BID SUMMARY TO DATE THIS PERIOD 311,000.30 30.00 30.00 $0.00 $31,556.30 342.566.60 TOTAL TO DATE $1,056,901.33 329,158.50 362,274.17 385,649.70 331,556.30 $1,255,540.00 TOTAL THIS PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE AMOUNT EARNED 342,556.60 31,255,640.00 AMOUNT RETAINED 32,127.83 362,777.00 MATERIAL 014 SITE 30.00 30.00 MATERIAL DEDUCT. 50.00 30.00 PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 31,162.334.23 AMOUNT DUE 340,428.77 $40,428.77 $1,255,540.00 I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown by this pay estimate are correct for the work completed to date. CONTRACTOR: FPI PAVING CONTRACTORS, INC. 13Y: TITLE: DATE: Based on the ENGINEER'S on-site inspections as an experienced and qualified design professional and on review of application for payment and the accompanying data and schedules, the ENGINEER has determined, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that the quantities shown by this estimate are correct and that, based on such inspections and review, that the work has progressed to the point indicated (subject to an evaluation of such work as a functioning Project upon Substantial Completion, to the results of any subsequent tests required by the Contract Documents, and to any qualifications stated in his recommendation), and that payment of the amount recommended is due Contractor(s); but by recommending any payment, the ENGINEER will not thereby be deemed to have reviewed the means, methods, sequences, techniques, or procedures of construction or safety precautions or programs incident thereto or that the ENGINEER has made any examination to ascertain how or for what purpose any Contractor has used the monies paid on account of the Contract Price, or that title to any of the work, materials, or equipment has passed to the Owner free and clear of any lien, claims, security interests or encumbrances, or that the Contractor(s) have completed their work exactly in accordance with the Contract Documents. ENG/NEER: ELFERING & ASSOCIATES RY: TITLE: DA'L'E: Approved by Owner/Commission CITY OF LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA BY: TITLE: DATE: END 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www.ci.little-canada. mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Keis & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: February 20, 2015 RE: Appraisal of Old Public Works Garage MAYOR John Keis COUNCIL Rick Montour Michael McGraw Tom Fischer Christian Torkelson ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson I have been in contact with Nicollet Partners regarding the cost to obtain a value estimate for the existing Public Works Garage. Nicollet Partners has done a number of commercial appraisals for us over the years and the City Attorney feels their work is very credible. Based on this conversation, the cost for the value estimate will likely be between $2,000 and $2,500. (This compares for double that amount for a full blown commercial appraisal. The City Attorney was also going to talk with them regarding pricing. Pending the outcome of that conversation, I may have additional quotes to consider at Wednesday's meeting. 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / FAX: (65I) 766-4048 www.ci.little-canada.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Keis & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: February 20, 2015 RE: 56 Little Canada Road Update MAYOR John Keis COUNCIL Rick Montour Michael McGraw Tom Fischer Christian Torkelson ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson The offer authorized by the Council has been submitted to the realtor. I expect to hear the owner's response by Wednesday's meeting. I will update you at that time. 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www.ci.little-canadamn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Keis & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: February 20, 2015 RE: Workshop with Sheriff's Department to Discuss Meeting Security MAYOR John Keis COUNCIL Rick Montour Michael McGraw Toni Fischer Christian Torkelson ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson Commander Ty Sheridan of the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department can be present at 6:30 p.m. on March 25th (before our regular council meeting scheduled for that night) to meet with you to discuss security issues at Council meetings. Staff recommends calling for that workshop if that date works for you. LITTLE CANADA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 Telephone: (651) 766-40291 Fax: (651) 766-4048 www.ci.little-canada.mn.us TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MM MORELAN, Director (651) 766-4045 KATIE McGINNFY, Recreation Supervisor (651) 766-4042 DON BOWMAN, Recreation Coordinator (651) 766-4041 DEREK ANDERSON, Park Maintenance Supervisor (651) 766-4056 MEMORANDUM Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council Jim Morelan, Parks & Recreation Director February 20, 2015 Gervais Mill Fishing Pier Repair Through our internal maintenance and periodic inspections of the two fishing piers in Gervais Mill Park, it became obvious this past year that after 20 years the wooden decking and railings are in need of replacement. Current ice and snow cover make it difficult to see, but I have attached a couple of pictures in an attempt to better relate the wear and deterioration of the wood. Because of the need for these repairs, staff requested $10,000 be earmarked for that repair as part of the 2015 Capital Improvement Budget. Given the City's current relationship with James Steele Construction, I asked them to look at the fishing piers and provide a repair estimate. After inspection, they provided a cost range of $10,000 to $14,000 to replace all of the treated decking and handrails on both piers, with the work being performed under a time and materials agreement. James Steele Construction President, Richard Naughton, stated that the structures could be repaired for less by only replacing the failing pieces, but continued repairs would have to be addressed yearly. The piers were originally installed and donated to the City by the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District as part of the total ponding project in Gervais Mill Park. 1 feel the piers will last an additional 20 years with minimal maintenance with the replacement of the treated lumber. Costs can be minimized if the repairs begin now given the ponds are iced over and work can be done from both sides of the railings. While this is the only quote I have for this work, I believe our current business relationship with James Steele Construction will result in the maximum cost savings for the project. In order to eliminate temporary repairs that will be needed this spring and to ensure the future integrity and safety of the piers, I would recommend authorizing James Steele Construction to proceed with the repairs as soon as possible.