Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/14/2014
pip LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2014 LAUDERDALE CITY HALL, 1891 WALNUT STREET The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to Robert's Rules of Order and the Standing Rules of Order and Business of the City Council. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at meetings. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVALS a. Agenda b. Minutes of the September 23, 2014 City Council Meeting c. Claims Totaling $111,191.49 4. CONSENT a. Pay Request for Sanitary Sewer Lining Project — Visu-Sewer, Inc. b. Pay Request for Larpenteur Avenue Sidewalk Project — Concrete Ideas, Inc. c. Ramsey County Public Entity Innovation Grant 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 6. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS a. Halloween Event —October 31, 2014,5-7 p.m. b. Tri -City Electronics Recycling Event — November 1, 2014, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council. 8. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS a. Storm Sewer Manhole Repairs at Pleasant Street and Larpenteur Avenue 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 11. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING a. Certification of 2014 Municipal Election Results b. Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, and Recycling Rates c. 2015 Fund Budgets 12. WORK SESSION a. Opportunity for the Public to Address the City Council Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item not on the agenda. In consideration for the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address, and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Robert's Rules of Order and the standing rules of order and business of the City Council, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. b. Administrative Penalties — City Attorney Katrina Joseph c. Larpenteur Avenue Snow Removal d. Community Development Update 13. ADJOURNMENT LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 1 of 3 September 23, 2014 Mayor Dains called the City Council meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Councilors present: Mary Gaasch, Roxanne Grove, Lara Mac Lean, Denise Hawkinson, and Mayor Jeff Dains. Staff present: Heather Butkowski, City Administrator; Jim Bownik, Assistant City Administrator; and Kevin Kelly, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Dains asked for changes to the meeting agenda. Councilor Grove added Midland Hills Golf Course to the agenda. Councilor Grove moved to approve the agenda as amended. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Gaasch moved to approve the September 9, 2014 City Council meeting minutes. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Hawkinson moved approval of the claims totaling $45,919.45. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mayor Dains asked if any Councilors wished to remove items from the Consent Agenda; none did. Councilor Mac Lean moved to approve the Consent Agenda thereby recognizing the July Finances. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Informational Presentations: Students from the University of Minnesota Sustainability Program Madeline Hoover and Sara Powers, University of Minnesota (U of M) Sustainability Studies program students, addressed the Council. Hoover and Powers and other U of M students will work on analyzing the sustainability of the cities of Lauderdale, Falcon Heights, and St. Anthony. The specific areas Hoover and Powers are in are energy efficiency and water management and conservation. Hoover and Powers, along with the other students in the sustainability program, will present their findings at the Sustainability Fair being held on November 20 at Silverwood Park in St. Anthony. All residents are welcome to attend. Discussion Items: Luther Seminary Plat City Attorney Ron Batty addressed the Council. Batty stated that the plat was essentially completed and the Council could vote on the Final Plat. The outstanding issues were detailed in the resolution and will be addressed before the Mylars are signed by the Mayor and City Administrator. Batty did suggest modifying the resolution to add a condition about granting the County an easement for a sidewalk. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 2 of 3 September 23, 2014 Councilor Hawkinson moved to adopt Resolution 092314B as modified for final plat approval. Councilor Mac Lean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2015 Preliminary Levy and Budget Butkowski presented information to the Council at the last meeting and the Council discussed not raising the local tax levy for 2015. The total tax levy will increase by 1.3% but that will be paid by fiscal disparities and local government aid increases. The remaining increases in the projected operating costs for 2015 will be paid for by the fee the City will receive for providing Catholic Eldercare its ability to issue bank qualified debt for 2014. Butkowski stated there will be no debt levy for payment of bonds in 2015. The Truth in Taxation Public Hearing will be held at the December 9 meeting. Councilor Mac Lean moved to adopt Resolution 092314A -A Resolution Levying Taxes for 2014 Payable for 2015 in the Amount of $624,357 and establishing December 9 as the date of the Truth in Taxation Hearing. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Eureka Recycling Contract Bownik provided an overview on the most recent changes to the draft recycling contract with Eureka Recycling. Those changes included establishing pick-up location for city facilities and a plan to roll out recycling carts in the spring. Councilor Grove moved to approve the amended and restated agreement for recycling services with Eureka Recycling. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Change of Meeting Date Bownik addressed the Council regarding upcoming council meetings conflicting with Halloween set up and Veterans Day on November 11. The Council discussed different dates and agreed to cancel the October 28 council meeting and hold the November 11 meeting on November 10. The Council decided to not hold the October 28'h meeting but to authorize staff to process the City's claims for payment in the time between the October 14 Council and the November 10 rescheduled Council Meeting Councilor Mac Lean moved to cancel the October 28 council meeting, reschedule the November 11 meeting for November 10, and authorized City staff to process a claims batch between October 14 and the end of October. Councilor Hawkinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Lauderdale City Hall 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, MN 55113 Page 3 of 3 Additional Items: September 23, 2014 Midland Hills Golf Course Councilor Grove added this item to the agenda. Paul Syverson, 1975 Carl Street, addressed the Council regarding the golf balls from Midland Hills Country Club landing on his property. Syverson stated he is concerned about his and his children's safety. Syverson said he was hit by a golf ball while standing in his garage. He spoke with staff at Midland Hills who informed him they sent a letter to members regarding the situation which appears to have had no effect. Mayor Dains stated he is meeting with Mayor Roe of the City of Roseville and will bring up the situation with him. Agenda items for the next council meeting may include the August Finances and the Quarterly Investment Report. Work Session: Mayor Dains explained that the Council was moving into the Work Session. Work Sessions are a continuation of the meeting but not aired on community television. Mayor Dains asked if anyone wished to address the Council. No one came forward. Community Development Update Larpenteur Avenue Project Butkowski stated the Larpenteur Avenue Project is being completed currently. Council Members stated that the work is moving quickly and is looking very nice. There being no further business on the council agenda, Councilor Hawkinson moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Gaasch seconded the motion and it carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, zc� / Kevin Kelly Deputy City Clerk CITY OF LAUDERDALE CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL October 14, 2014 City Council Meeting Payroll 09/26/14 Payroll 09/26/14 Payroll 10/14/14 Payroll 10/14/14 Payroll Vendor Claims Direct Deposit # 501868-501877 Payroll Liabilities, e -payments 923E -926E Direct Deposit # 501878-501882 Payroll Liabilities, e -payments 927E -929E 10/14/14 Claims: Check #'s 22452-22478 $8,889.74 $9,088.93 $7,667.14 $7,620.95 $77,924.731 SUBTOTAL $111,191.491 Total Claims for Approval $111,191.49 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 09/26/14 1:33 PM Page 1 *Claim Register© 092614pyrll SEPTEMBER 2014 Claim Type Direct Claim# 4214 NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING ST Ck# 000923E 9/26/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21701 FEDERAL TAXES 9/26/14 Payroll $1,270.87 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21703 FICA WITHHOLDING. 9/26/14 Payroll $2,365.42 Invoice Transaction Date 9/26/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $3,636.29 Claim# 4215 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Ck# 000924E 9/26/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21705 ICMA RETIREMENT 9/26/14 Payroll $2,513.63 Invoice Transaction Date 9/26/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $2,513.63 Claim# 4216 PERA Ck# 000925E 9/26/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21702 STATE WITHHOLDING 9/26/14 Payroll $1,756.27 Invoice Transaction Date 9/26/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,756.27 Claim# 4217 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Ck# 000926E 9/26/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21702 STATE WITHHOLDING 9/26/2014 Payroll $1,182.74 Invoice Transaction Date 9/26/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,182.74 Claim Type Direct Tota $9,088.93 Pre -Written Check $9,088.93 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $9,088.93 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/09/148:45 AM Page 1 *Claim Register© 101414pyrll OCTOBER 2014 Claim Type Direct Claim# 4242 NORTH STAR BANK, CHECKING ST Ck# 000927E 10/9/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21701 FEDERAL TAXES 10/14/14 Payroll $1,234.72 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21703 FICA WITHHOLDING. 10/14/14 Payroll $2,134.44 Invoice Transaction Date 10/9/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $3,369.16 Claim# 4243 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Ck# 000928E 10/9/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21705 ICMA RETIREMENT 10/14/14 Payroll $2,513.63 Invoice Transaction Date 10/9/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $2,513.63 Claim# 4244 PERA Ck# 000929E 10/9/2014 Cash Payment G 101-21704 PERA 10/14/14 Payroll $1,738.16 Invoice Transaction Date 10/9/2014 Due 0 NORTH STAR CHE 10100 Total $1,738.16 Claim Type Direct Tota $7,620.95 Pre -Written Check $7,620.95 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $7,620.95 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/10/1412:54 PM Page 1 *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2014 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 10/14/2014 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. E 601-49000-387 Paid Chk# 02 24 52 10114/2014 AFSCME otal MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. $10,281.21 G 101-21709 UNION DUES $111.38 9/14 Union Dues COPIER CONTRACT Total AFSCME $111.38 Total METRO SALES, INC. Paid Chk# 022453 10/14/2014 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS 10/14/2014 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY E 101-42100-321 FIRE CALLS $2,517.25 9/14 Fire Calls Total CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS $2,517.25 Paid Chk# 022454 10/14/2014 CITY OF ROSEVILLE E 101-41200-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $85.00 10/14 Phone Services E 101-41200-306 CONSULTING FEES $635.67 10/14 Phone and IT Services Total CITY OF ROSEVILLE $720.67 Paid Chk# 022455 10/14/2014 CITY OF ST ANTHONY m k a rs E 101-42100-319 POLICE CONTRACT $51,423.42 10/14 Police Contract Total CITY OF ST ANTHONY $51,423.42 Paid Chk# 022456 10/14/2014 CROIX OIL E 101-43000-212 MOTOR FUELS $198.28 9/14 Motor Fuel E 601-49000-212 MOTOR FUELS $42.49 9/14 Motor Fuel E 602-49100-212 MOTOR FUELS $42.48 9/14 Motor Fuel Total CROIX OIL $283.25 Paid Chk# 022457 10/14/2014 GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS G 1 01-21 706 HEALTH INSURANCE $50.90 8/14 Long Term Care Plan Total GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS $50.90 Paid Chk# 022458 10/14/2014 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL E 101-43400-386 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL $121.15 9/14 Locates Total GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL $121.15 Paid Chk# 022459 11 10114/2014 HO11 ME DEPOTCR I C E 101-43000-228 MISC REPAIRS MAINT SUPPLIE $451.51 supplies for 2430 Larpenteur Total HOME DEPOT CRC $451.51 Paid Chk# 022460 10/14/2014 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. E 601-49000-387 WATER TREATMENT SERVICE $10,281.21 11/14 Waste Water Treatment otal MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. $10,281.21 Paid Chk# 022461 10/14/2014 METRO SALES, INC. E 101-41200-401 COPIER CONTRACT $97.81 June -September Copier Charges Total METRO SALES, INC. $97.81 Paid Chk# 022462 10/14/2014 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY E 101-43400-443 SURCHARGE REPORT $185.08 3Q2014 Surcharge Reports Total MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY $185.08 Paid Chk# 022463 10/14/2014 NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY CASH CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/10/14 12:54 PM Page 2 *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2014 .w... HALLOWEEN EVENT Check Amt .... Invoice Comment _.._._ .. E 201-45600-440 MEETING EXPENSES $30.00 PCIC Mtg. Pizza E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $53.20 Stamps E 101-43400-355 MISC PRINTING/PROCESS SER $46.00 Recording Fee - Ramsey Co. E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $6.15 1 Flat Rate Package E 101-41200-440 MEETING EXPENSES $15.00 MCFOA Lunch Mtg. - KK E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $6.49 1 Certified Letter E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $7.98 Cleaning & Office Supplies E 101-41200-201 GENERAL SUPPLIES $11.97 Fly Traps for CH Total NORTH STAR BANK, PETTY CASH $176.79 Total RAMSEY Paid Chk# 022464 10/14/2014 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP x m E 202-49500-327 OTHER SERV- SEWER/NPDES 1 $729.91 3Q14 Webstreaming/Programming Total NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP $729.91 Paid Chk# 022465 10%14/2014 POSTMASTER - STAMPS - ry E 101-41200-203 POSTAGE $151.20 3 Rolls and 1 Flat of $.21 Stamps Total POSTMASTER - STAMPS $151.20 Paid Chk# 022466 10/14/2014 PREMIUM WATERS, INC E 101-41200-208 WATER DELIVERY $37.42 9/14 Water Delivery Total PREMIUM WATERS, INC $37.42 Paid Chk# 022467 10/14/2014 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES INS PROGRAM G 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE $1,775.32 11/14 Health Benefits Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES INS PROGRAM $1,775.32 Paid Chk# 022468 10/14/2014 RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH E 201-45600-379 HALLOWEEN EVENT $80.00 2014 Temporary Food License Total RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH $80.00 Paid Chk# 022469 10/14/2014 RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV R E 101-41200-355 MISC PRINTING/PROCESS SER $25.00 10/14 Employee Insurance G 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE $440.96 10/14 Employee Insurance E 203-50000-327 OTHER SERV- SEWER/NPDES 1 $331.00 2014 Recycling Contract Charges E 304-47400-621 FILE MAINTENANCE CHARGES $150.00 Special Assessment Charges E 405-48500-327 OTHER SERV- SEWER/NPDES I $887.40 2013 TIF Aministrative Charg E 101-42100-442 MISC $6.24 9/14 800 MHz radio license E 101-42100-318 911 Dispatch $1,172.89 9/14 800 MHz radio license Total RAMSEY COUNTY, PROP REC & REV $3,013.49 Paid Chk# 022470 10/14/2014 SAFETY SIGNS E 201-45600-378 NATIONAL NIGHT OUT $134.40 2014 Nite to Unite Baricades Total SAFETY SIGNS $134.40 Paid Chk# 022471 10/14/2014 SPRINT PCS E 602-49100-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $17.27 9/14 PW Cell Phones E 601-49000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $17.28 9/14 PW Cell Phones E 101-43000-391 TELEPHONE/PAGERS $34.55 9/14 PW Cell Phones CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/10/14 12:54 PM Page 3 *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2014 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total SPRINT PCS $69.10 Paid Chk# 022472 10/14/2014 STANTEC G101-22225 LUTHER SEMINARY ESCROW $370.00 Luther Seminary Plat & Larpenteur Ave Project E405-48500-325 LARPENTEUR AVE IMPROVEM $3,915.75 Luther Seminary Plat & Larpenteur Ave Project Total STANTEC $4,285.75 Paid Chk# 022473 10/14/2014 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE E101-41200-401 COPIER CONTRACT $149.00 10/14 Ricoh Copier Contract Total US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE $149.00 Paid Chk# 022474 10/14/2014 WASTE MANAGEMENT E 101-43000-384 REFUSE DISPOSAL $261.86 Sept- Nov refuse disposal Total WASTE MANAGEMENT $261.86 Paid Chk# 022475 10/14/2014 XCEL ENERGY, 2430 LARIP ENTEUR Paid Chk# 022477 10/14/2014 XCEL ENERGY, PARK & GARAGE E 101-43000-383 GAS UTILITIES E 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC E 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC E 101-43000-383 GAS UTILITIES Total XCEL ENERGY, PARK & GARAGE $26.86 9/14 City Utilities $28.01 9/14 City Utilities $28.01 9/14 City Utilities $26.86 9/14 City Utilities $1 U9.14 Paid Chk# 022478 10/14/2014 XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING E101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTILITY $492.24 9/14 Street Lights E101-43000-380 STREET LIGHT UTILITY $47.76 9/14 Bridge Lights Total XCEL ENERGY, STREET LIGHTING $540.00 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING $77,924.73 CITY OF LAUDERDALE *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2014 Check Amt Invoice Comment Fund Summary 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 101 GENERAL $61,265.54 201 COMMUNITY EVENTS $244.40 202 COMMUNICATIONS $729.91 203 RECYCLING $331.00 304 03 ST/UTIL IMP DEBT SERVICE $150.00 405 TIF -PROJECTS $4,803.15 601 SEWER UTILITIES $10,340.98 602 STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND $59.75 $77,924.73 10/10/14 12:54 PM Page 4 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Closed Session Meeting Date October 14, 2014 ITEM NUMBER Sanitary Sewer Lining STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Visu-Sewer has completed additional work and is requesting payment. The City Engineer reviewed the request and confirmed completion of the work. The project is not yet closed out and one additional pay request will be submitted. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council authorizes payment to Visu-Sewer, Inc. in the amount of $43,152.80. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/10/14 1:12 PM Page 1 *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2014 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING Paid Chk# 022480 1/1/414 VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC E 405-48500-327 OTHER SERV- SEWER/NPDES 1 $43,152.80 Sewer Lining Project Payment 3 Total VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC $43,152.80 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING $43,152.80 Fund Summary 10100 NORTH STAR CHECKING 405 TIF -PROJECTS $43,152.80 $43,152.80 Owner: Cltv of Lauderdale 1891 Walnut St Lauderdale MN 55113 Date: October 7 2014 (30 Stantec For Period: 10/19/2013 to 10/7/2014 Request No 3 Contractor: Visu-Sewer, Inc. W230 -N4855 Betker Dr., Pewaukee W153072 CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT 2013 SANITARY SEWER LINING PROJECT STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193801840 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount $ 180 210.00 2 Change Order - Addition $ 2,695.00 3 Change Order - Deduction $ 0.00 4 Revised Contract Amount $ 182,905.00 5 Value Completed to Date $ 182,863.00 6 Material on Hand $ 0.00 7 Amount Earned $ 182,863.00 8 Less Retainage 5% $ 9,143.15 9 Subtotal $ 173,719.85 10 Less Amount Paid Previously $ 130,567.05 11 Liquidated damages - $ 0.00 12 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 3 $ 43,152.80 Recommended for Approval by: STA�N^T—EC� Approved by Contractor: VISU-SEWER, INC. Specified Contract Completion Date: 183801840REWAsm Approved by Owner: CITY OF LAUDERDALE Date: TOTAL PART 1: EUSTIS STREET PROJECT TOTAL PART 2: ALLEY PROJECT TOTAL PART 3: TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MH 1-5) TOTAL ALTERNATE N0. 1 - TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MN 5-6) TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE 193601840RE03.xlsm $76,793.00 $33,224.00 $52,726.00 $17,425.00 $2,695.00 $182,863.00 Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount No. Item Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date PART 1: EUSTIS STREET PROJECT 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 1325.00 1 $1,325.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 50.00 1 $50.00 3 SEWER REHABILITATION WITH CIPP, 8" LF 2650 22.00 1015 2,654 $58,388.00 4 SERVICE LATERAL REPAIR BY CHEMICAL GROUT EA 30 345.00 49 $16,905.00 5 REMOVE PROTRUDING SEWER SERVICES EA 22 25.00 5 $125.00 TOTAL PART 1: EUSTIS STREET PROJECT _ $76,793.00 PART 2: ALLEY PROJECT 6 MOBILIZATION LS 1 650.00 1 $650.00 7 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 50.00 1 $50.00 8 SEWER REHABILITATION WITH CIPP, 8" LF 1300 22.00 987 1,317 $28,974.00 9 SERVICE LATERAL REPAIR BY CHEMICAL GROUT EA 25 345.00 4 10 $3,450.00 10 REMOVE PROTRUDING SEWER SERVICES EA 18 25.00 4 $100.00 TOTAL PART 2: ALLEY PROJECT $33,224.00 PART 3: TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MH 1-5) 11 MOBILIZATION LS 1 335.00 1 $335.00 12 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 2500.00 1 $2,500.00 13 BYPASS PUMPING LS 1 3850.00 1 $3,850.00 14 SEWER REHABILITATION WITH CIPP, 1511 LF 770 59.50 768 $45,696.00 15 SERVICE LATERAL REPAIR BY CHEMICAL GROUT EA 1 345.00 1 $345.00 16 REMOVE PROTRUDING SEWER SERVICES EA 0 0.00 $0.00 TOTAL PART 3: TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MH 1-5) $52,726.00 ALTERNATE NO. 1- TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MN 5-6) 17 MOBILIZATION LS 1 135.00 1 $135.00 18 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 133.00 1 $133.00 19 BYPASS PUMPING LS 1 1330.00 1 $1,330.00 20 SEWER REHABILITATION WITH CIPP, 15" LF 266 59.50 266 $15,827.00 21 SERVICE LATERAL REPAIR BY CHEMICAL GROUT EA 2 345.00 0 $0.00 22 REMOVE PROTRUDING SEWER SERVICES EA 2 150.00 0 $0.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1 - TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MN 5-6) $17,425.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. i 1 ADDITIONAL CLEANING LS 1 2695.00 1_ $2,695.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER N0. 1 $2,695.00 TOTAL PART 1: EUSTIS STREET PROJECT TOTAL PART 2: ALLEY PROJECT TOTAL PART 3: TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MH 1-5) TOTAL ALTERNATE N0. 1 - TH 280 AREA TRUNK PROJECT (MN 5-6) TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE 193601840RE03.xlsm $76,793.00 $33,224.00 $52,726.00 $17,425.00 $2,695.00 $182,863.00 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF LAUDERDALE STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193801840 CONTRACTOR VISU-SEWER,. INC. CHANGE ORDERS Nn_ 1 9/26/2013 This Change Order provides for additional work on this project. See Change Order. $2,695.00 To Pa ment Total Ch2gcje.Orders $2,695.00 PAYMENT SUMMARY No. From To Pa ment Retainage Completed 1 09/01/2013 09/6/2013 116 259.10 6,118.90 122 378.00 2 09/27/2013 10/18/2013 14 307.95 6,871.95 137 439.00 3 10/0712014 43 152.80 9,143.15.. 182 863.00 Material on Hand 193801840REQ3.xism LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent X Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Closed Session Meeting Date October 14, 2014 ITEM NUMBER Sidewalk Construction Project STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: As you know, Concrete Ideas has completed much of the sidewalk project and is requesting payment. The City Engineer reviewed the request and confirmed the amount to be paid. They are about two-thirds of the way done. We are largely waiting on the lights from the City of St. Paul. OPTIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council authorizes payment to Concrete Ideas, Inc. in the amount of $241,199.78. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF LAUDERDALE 10/10/14 1:06 PM Page 1 *Check Detail Register© OCTOBER 2014 $241,199.78 ® Stantec owner: City of Lauderdale, 1891 Walnut St., Lauderdale, MN 55113 Date: October 3, 2014 or Period: 9/17/2014 to 10/3/2014 Request No: 1 :ontractor: Concrete Idea, Inc., 5295 Ranch View Ln., Plymouth, MN 55446 CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT LARPENTEUR AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193801872 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised Contract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 Liquidated damages - 12 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO Recommended for Approval by: STANTEC Approved by Contractor: CONCRETE IDEA INC. Specified Contract Completion Date: 193801872REQ1.)dsm $ 0.00 A ().00 $ 315,214.00 $ 315,214.00 $ 253,894.50 $ 0.00 $ 253,894.50 $ 12,694.73 $ 241,199.78 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 241,199.78 Approved by Owner: CITY OF LAUDERDALE Date: 193801872REQt.)dsm Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount No. Item Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date BASE BID: 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 30000.00 0.9 0.9 $27,000.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 1 1000.00 0.75 0.75 $750.00 3 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 400 5.00 205 205 $1,025.00 4 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 2750 0.50 2365 2365 $1,182.50 5 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ FT 250 2.00 46 46 $92.00 6 REMOVE HANDHOLE EACH 7 500.00 5 5 $2,500.00 7 REMOVE BENCH EACH 1 100.00 1 1 $100.00 8 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 100 5.00 28 28 $140.00 9 SALVAGE CHAIN LINK FENCE LIN FT 70 5.00 84 84 $420.00 10 SALVAGE SIGN EACH 8 25.00 4 4 $100.00 11 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 400 10.00 290 290 $2,900.00 12 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR 6 75.00 5 5 $375.00 13 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 250 10.00 111 111 $1,110.00 14 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 30 54.00 5 5 $270.00 15 CONCRETE STEPS - DESIGN SPECIAL LIN FT 5 50.00 17 17 $850.00 16 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SQ FT 90 35.00 92 92 $3,220.00 17 RELOCATE HYDRANT EACH 1 2500.00 1 1 $2,500.00 18 5" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 4925 6.00 5522 5522 $33,132.00 19 CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 800 6.00 800 800 $4,800.00 20 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 400 25.00 205 205 $5,125.00 21 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 104 35.00 140 140 $4,900.00 22 LIGHTING SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1 78000.00 0.8 0.8 $62,400.00 23 INSTALL HANDHOLE EACH 7 900.00 5 5 $4,500.00 24 INSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE LIN FT 70 30.00 84 84 $2,520.00 25 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 5000.00 0.9 0.9 $4,500.00 26 INSTALL SIGN EACH 8 100.00 4 4 $400.00 27 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM SYS 1 10000.00 0.9 0.9 $9,000.00 28 TEMPORARY FENCE LIN FT 200 2.00 202 202 $404.00 29 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT 200 4.00 42 42 $168.00 30 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 8 100.00 6 6 $600.00 31 SODDING TYPE SALT RESISTANT SQ YD 810 7.50 507 507 $3,802.50 32 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SQ FT 522 12.00 $0.00 TOTAL BASE BID $180,786.00 ALTERNATE NO. 1: COLORED CONCRETE SIDEWALK - TH 280 TO FULHAM ST. 33 5" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT -2230 6.00 -2423 -2423 -$14,538.00 34 5" CONCRETE WALK - SPECIAL SQ FT 2230 14.00 2423 2423 $33,922.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1: COLORED CONCRETE SIDEWALK - TH 280 TO FULHAM ST. $19,384.00 ALTERNATE NO. 2: TREES AND PERVIOUS PAVEERS (HWY 280 TO PLEASANT) 35 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 50 25.00 $0.00 36 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD 170 5.00 $0.00 37 EXCAVATION SPECIAL CU YD 20 30.00 $0.00 38 STRUCTURAL SOIL BORROW (CV) CU YD 50 10.00 $0.00 39 AGGREGATE BEDDING SPECIAL CU YD 5 50.00 $0.00 40 5" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT -700 6.00 $0.00 41 CONCRETE PAVERS SQ FT 700 14.00 $0.00 42 DECIDUOUS TREE 10' HT B&B TREE 1 500.00 1 1 $500.00 43 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B TREE 6 100.00 3 3 $300.00 44 DECIDUOUS SHRUB NO 5 CONT SHRB 14 60.00 14 14 $840.00 45 PERENNIAL PLANT 5 40.00 $0.00 46 TREE GRATE & FRAMES EACH 3 1000.00 $0.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2: TREES AND PERVIOUS PAVEERS (HWY 280 TO PLEASANT) $1,640.00 ALTERNATE NO. 4: PLEASANT ST. TO FULHAM ST. (NO BLVD) 72 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 80 5.00 68 68 $340.00 73 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 600 0.50 313 313 $156.50 74 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ FT 5 20.00 12 12 $240.00 75 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT LIN FT 20 5.00 11 11 $55.00 76 SALVAGE SIGN EACH 6 25.00 5 5 $125.00 193801872REQt.)dsm No. 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 TOTAL BASE BID: TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1: COLORED CONCRETE SIDEWALK - TH 280 TO FULHAM ST. TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2: TREES AND PERVIOUS PAVEERS (HWY 280 TO PLEASANT) TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4: PLEASANT ST. TO FULHAM ST. (NO BLVD) TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE 193801872REQ1.)dsm $180,786.00 $19,384.00 $1,640.00 $52,084.50 $253,894.50 Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount Item Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 360 8.00 200 200 $1,600.00 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 190 10.00 37 37 $370.00 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 5 54.00 1 1 $54.00 CONCRETE STEPS - DESIGN SPECIAL LIN FT 5 50.00 4 4 $200.00 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SQ FT 720 32.50 700 700 $22,750.00 5' CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 4720 6.00 3414 3414 $20,484.00 CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 175 6.00 $0.00 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 80 25.00 68 68 $1,700.00 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 24 35.00 40 40 $1,400.00 INSTALL SIGN EACH 6 100.00 5 5 $500.00 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 4 100.00 5 5 $500.00 SODDING TYPE SALT RESISTANT SQ YD 340 5.00 322 322 $1,610.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4: PLEASANT ST. TO FULHAM ST. (NO BLVD) $52,084.50 TOTAL BASE BID: TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1: COLORED CONCRETE SIDEWALK - TH 280 TO FULHAM ST. TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 2: TREES AND PERVIOUS PAVEERS (HWY 280 TO PLEASANT) TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 4: PLEASANT ST. TO FULHAM ST. (NO BLVD) TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE 193801872REQ1.)dsm $180,786.00 $19,384.00 $1,640.00 $52,084.50 $253,894.50 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF LAUDERDALE STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193801872 CONTRACTOR CONCRETE IDEA INC. CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Description Amount Total Change Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY No. From To Payment Retainage Completed 1 109/17/2014 110/03/20141 241,199.78 1 12,694.73 1 253,894.50 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $241,199.78 Original Contract $315,214.00 Retainage Pay No. 1 12,694.73 Change Orders Total Amount Earned $253,894.50 Revised Contract $315,214.00 193801872REQ1.xism ACTION REQUESTED Consent X LAUDERDALE COUNCIL MEETING DATE October 14, 2014 Special Public Hearing ITEM NUMBER Public Entity Innovation Grant Report Discussion/Action STAFF INITIAL Jim Resolution Work session APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR BACKGROUND: Ramsey County continues to work with cities to achieve state -mandated recycling goals. The County still has funds available through the Public Entity Innovation Grant Program with up to $100,000 available per award. The program started with $1,500,000. Last year, Lauderdale and Falcon Heights collaborated with Ramsey County on a bulky waste collection pilot project for single-family homes. Recently, Lauderdale and Falcon Heights agreed to collaborate on a second bulky collection pilot project for multi -family buildings. As discussed recently as part of the amended and restated agreement with Eureka Recycling, Lauderdale is planning to transition to city -owned recycling carts in the spring of 2015. While the cost of the carts has not yet been determined, the cost of recycling carts is expected to exceed $35,000. Ramsey County has indicated a willingness to help cities pay for recycling carts through their grant program. Thus, as previously suggested, staff would like to apply for a third grant to purchase city - owned recycling containers that would be rolled out to residents in the spring of 2015. The Council does not need to take action on this item. However, staff would like the City Council's support for submitting the grant application. OPTIONS: 1) Approve as part of the consent agenda. 2) Remove from consent agenda for discussion and potential action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By approving the consent agenda, the Council is authorizing staff to submit the PEIG application to Ramsey County. COUNCIL ACTION: LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion X Action X Resolution Work Session Meeting Date October 14, 2014 ITEM NUMBER Laipenteur Storm Sewer STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: Storm Sewer Revisions at Laipenteur and Pleasant The existing storm sewer structure is in conflict with the sidewalk and retaining wall con- struction. Leaving the MH in place results in a sidewalk that is about 3.5 feet wide at the narrowest point. Typically, the solution to a situation like this would be to lower the storm sewer manhole. In this case the elevation of the upstream pipe is very shallow and prevents this option. The proposed solution involves installing a new structure immediately upstream of the existing structure to lower the upstream pipe. Then, the manhole currently in the side- walk can then be lowered. Since this work is outside the capabilities of the project sidewalk contractor, two construc- tion companies were contacted to provide quotes related to this work. HydroCon construc- tion provided a quote of $8,138 to perform the work. This amount would compare well with an engineering estimate for this type of work and would compare well to expected costs in a competitive bidding situation. Another contractor's quote was slightly more than double at $16,633. Looking ahead to the overall financial impact to this project, our current estimate has the remainder of the project work coming in approximately $5,000 below the contract quantity. This work would typically result in a project change order. However, this work falls outside the expertise of the project's contractor. We feel the city would be better and more effi- ciently served through a work order agreement with Hydrocon. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Contract with Hydrocon for an amount not to exceed $8138 to revise storm sewer at Larpenteur Ave and Pleasant Street. LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session X Meeting Date October 14 , 2014 ITEM NUMBER Nuisances STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: The City's prosecuting attorney, Katrina Joseph, plans to attend the council meeting regarding the City's current and future plans for handling unresolved nuisances. As you know, city staff send out a series of letters to individuals with nuisances (generally starting in the spring) to at- tempt to garner compliance. If the issue is not resolved after the homeowner receives three no- tices, Katrina will send a letter. Most often that does the trick. When it doesn't work, Katrina can charge individuals with volitions of city code and then the matter enters the judicial realm. Currently, the City has a couple of active cases from individu- als that did not resolve their nuisances back in 2013. The obvious downfall to all of this is the time it takes to get a nuisance stopped or cleaned up. On the up side, once the judge or jury de- cides that a violation needs to be remedied, the threat of big fines or jail time makes people take notice. Practically speaking, only the most egregious of nuisances can be taken to court. As a result, staff have limited tools to get property owners to take care of the less serious nuisances. Katrina would like to dialogue with the Council and get direction from the Council on different ap- proaches to handling nuisances. In particular she would like to discuss administrative enforce- ment. Attached to this memo is part of a document from the League of Minnesota Cities that explains different enforcement mechanisms. Administrative penalties is part VII—D. RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. stat. § 412.221, subd. An ordinance defining a particular activity as a public nuisance is 32. St. Paul r. ciU111an, 36 presumably a valid exercise of a city's police powers. Not only have many Minn. 298, 31 N.W. 49 cities adopted nuisance ordinances, but many rely on their local ordinances (1886). Cf. City of St. Patti v. Haugbro, 93 Minn. 59, more than state statutes. However, ordinances may only regulate public 100 N.W. 470 (1904). nuisances and may not declare something a public nuisance that would otherwise be considered a private nuisance, relatively harmless, or simply not a nuisance at all. Ordinance language is critical for city efforts to be effective. City ordinances often mirror the provisions provided in state law, but often Press v. City of Minneapolis, include specific acts or omissions to provide local officials direction in 553 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). State,.. Becker, enforcing nuisance violations. A common problem is not properly defining 351 N.W.2d 923 (Minn. terms, or using terms too vague or broad to be enforceable. Conversely, an 1984). ordinance may be drafted in a way that is too limiting to encompass all intended violations. The ordinance should clearly provide the enforcement procedure and how it will be interpreted and applied. The primary purpose of nuisance regulations is usually to encourage compliance, not necessarily punish offenders. VII. Remedies Lorshbough v. Township of Cities have choices in how they will remedy nuisance conditions and Bttzale, 258 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 1977). Pelican Lake enforce their nuisance ordinances. Adopting an ordinance may create a Property OwnersAssn 1,. duty to take some reasonable steps to enforce it on behalf of the general County of Crow Wing, Nos. C5-98-1549, C3-98-1940 public. Most cities will use a combination of methods, depending upon (Minn- Ct. App. Aug. 17, their resources and the seriousness of the offense. Whatever methods are 1999) (unpublished decision). Schuha v. Frank used, it is a good practice to have a policy guiding when a particular No. C1-00-285 (Minn. Ct. method will be used. This will ensure that similar violations are treated App. Aug 1, 2000) (unpublished decision). equally. A. Self -remedy The most cost-effective way to remedy nuisance conditions is for the individual to correct the situation him- or herself with minimal city involvement. There are situations where someone is unaware that he or she is maintaining a nuisance and will correct the situation when so informed through a letter or a conversation. Cities can also consider other potentially effective voluntary approaches for nuisance elimination. For example, many cities sponsor neighborhood cleanup days or city-wide recycling events. These activities: provide individuals the opportunity to dispose of many larger items; provide an opportunity for neighborhood residents to work together to address general maintenance issues; and may provide incentive for individuals to fix up their own property. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 412.231 Minn. Stat. § 609.02. See Part VII— F— Abatement. Hannan v. Cite of Minneapolis, 623 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). City of Ramsey v. Kiefer, No. A08-1714 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2009) (unpublished decision). B. Criminal prosecutions Most nuisance ordinances provide that violations will constitute a misdemeanor offense. A misdemeanor is a crime for which a sentence of not more than 90 days imprisonment or a fine of not more than $1,000 (or both) may be imposed. Criminal prosecutions may take longer than other alternatives and require a higher burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). However, a possible criminal conviction can provide a good incentive for the individual to bring his or her property into compliance. 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 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 come 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. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 17 E. Licensing Cities also address nuisance conditions through common regulatory Handbook, Chapter 11. Handbook, Chapter 12. 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 Minn. stat. § 415.17. 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 suspend, revoke, or deny renewal of the license or permit, and potentially even close a business unless or until it is brought back into compliance. Licensing practices can provide broad benefits to local communities by addressing direct and secondary impacts of particular activities. For instance, cities often regulate: • The consumption and sale of alcohol. • The conduct of adult businesses. 0 The conduct of lawful gambling. • The operations of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. • The use of city streets and sidewalks. • Land use and development. See LMC information memo, A land use tool known as a conditional use permit (CUP) is a good Zoning Guidefin- Cities. example of such a regulation. Conditional uses seek to strike a middle Zyika v. city ofOystai, 283 ground between the unchecked approval of a particular use and complete Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969): prohibition. Conditional uses are uses that will be allowed if certain conditions (that minimize the problematic or nuisance features of the use) are met. If such conditions are not followed, the permit may be revoked. City ofDuiuth v. r;,-upp, 46 An additional benefit with licensing or permitting systems is the collection Minn. 435,49 N.W. 235 (1891). o, -,-V. City of of a fee. A proper license fee can include the law enforcement/city staff Rochester-, 193 Minn. 371, costs required to properly enforce the city regulations or address the other 258 N.W. 569 (1935). "Setting Municipal Fees," negative consequences that are likely to occur with that type of activity. Minnesota cities (Apr. 2004, Cities cannot set license fees so high as to prohibit such businesses (or P. 19). activities) within the city altogether. F. Abatement Regardless of what level of priority is placed on regulating nuisance activities, situations will arise that demand city action. Who will act and how the situation is actually remedied depends upon the particulars involved. 1. Voluntary abatement—notice League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 17 RELEVANT LINKS: See Part vii- A- Self- In almost all cases, the city's first step in an abatement process is the remedy. request for a voluntary remedy of the nuisance condition. Again, convincing an individual to take care of his or her own problems is the most cost-effective way to address most public nuisances. If this does not occur, a clearly written notice is an important first step in providing due process, ensuring that the individual's property rights are protected if the city must abate the condition itself. 2. Injunctions 35 Dunnell Minn. Digest Since the criminal process can often times be slow and the results are Nuisances § 2.03 (4th ed. 1997). uncertain, it may be necessary to seek injunctive relief to terminate or State r. Sportsmen's County prevent a nuisance. Under its duty and authority to protect the rights of all Club 214 Minn. 151, 7 N.W.2d 495 (1943). of its citizens, a city can obtain injunctions to restrain public nuisances. Minn. stat. §§ 617.82-.83. The city attorney files a petition with the district court seeking a temporary See Minnesota House Research Dept., Minnesota's injunction. The court will hold a "show cause" hearing to provide the Public and Private Nuisance alleged violator an opportunity to be heard on the allegations within the Laws (July 2008). petition. If the judge believes that the condition has occurred, he or she See Part vtl->~-3-Orders will issue a temporary injunction, detailing the prohibited conduct or of abatement. Minn. stat. § 61T86. conditions. After a temporary injunction is issued, the court, after a further hearing, may issue a permanent injunction and order of abatement if it finds (by clear and convincing evidence) that a nuisance exists. Violation of temporary or permanent injunction is treated as contempt of court. See LMC sample ordinance when adopting a nuisance ordinance, it is important to include a provision regulating public nuisances. providing that the city will seek a court injunction when no other adequate remedy exists. 3. Orders of abatement For some nuisance conditions, an order preventing the condition from continuing will sufficiently end the problem conduct. Noise nuisances are a good example; when the noise is no longer allowed, the nuisance no longer exists. In others circumstances (such as the long grass and weeds), the nuisance will continue until steps are taken to eliminate the condition (the grass and weeds are cut). In those cases, an abatement order will provide the process for nuisance elimination. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 18 RELEVANT LINKS: a. Judicial Orders Ames v. Cannot Rives-Nrfg. When a city seeks relief through the courts, the judge's order will provide Co., 27 Minn. 245, 6 N.W. 787(1880). the process for abatement. It may provide the owner the opportunity to remedy the situation himself, as well as provide deadlines for when the city may remove the situation itself. The court is available to resolve any additional disputes that may arise during the process, or impose additional penalties for not complying with the order. Minn. stat. § 617.82. The property owner may enter into an agreement with the city to avoid the City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 768 N.W.2d 352 issuance or enforcement of an abatement order. If the property owner fails (Minn. 2009). to abate the public nuisance conditions, the city may again seek an injunction. b. City orders Many cities attempt to avoid the judicial process by including within their local ordinances the authority to abate nuisance conditions themselves. Mindful of property rights and the need to provide adequate due process, the city ordinance typically provides for: • Property inspections (which may require obtaining the necessary warrants) and documentation of any nuisance condition or activity. • Written notice of the finding of a violation of city ordinance provided to the owners or operators. • An opportunity to contest the nuisance finding with the city council or selected neutral party. • Written notice of the date when the violation of city ordinance must be remedied; possible second written notice when the condition has not been corrected; notice of the court date if the city seeks a court order declaring the nuisance condition. • City cleanup of the nuisance condition. • When personal property is removed in the cleanup process, an inventory of all property collected; notice of where the property can be reclaimed; and the date by which it must be reclaimed, or it will be disposed of (sold or destroyed) by the city. Depending upon the property involved, there may be specific statutory procedures to follow. See Part X1 -Special • An inventory of all costs involved (i.e., cleanup and storage). assessments. • A claim sent to the property owner for the total costs of abatement, as well as how costs will be collected, including possible certification and collection with property taxes. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 19 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 20 c. Tenants Remedies Act Minn. stat. §§ 504$.395- There is also limited authority for a city to intervene in landlord -tenant .471. Minn. stat. § 50413.381. situations. A state, county, or local department or authority, charged with enforcing health, housing, or building maintenance codes has specific statutory authority to bring an action in district court and request a remedy (landlord ordered to remove condition) for violation of health, safety, housing, building, fire prevention, or housing maintenance codes on the tenant's behalf. 4. Summary/emergency abatement Reed r. Board of Park While cities typically must provide notice and a chance to respond to ComS-s of City of Winona, 100 Minn. 167, 110 N.W. nuisance conditions, there are limited circumstances that may justify 1119 (1907). dispensing with standard procedures. There are situations so dangerous that require immediate repair or elimination, such as: • Open wells. • Abandoned machinery and appliances (i.e., "locking" refrigerators). • Downed power lines. • Fallen trees. Kelty r. City of dlinneapolis, • Obstructed streets and sidewalks. 157 Minn. 430,196 N.W. • Raw sewage. 487 (1923). The power to summarily abate nuisances is limited, based upon actual See Part lx - C- necessity as defined and provided by ordinance. When summary action is Documentation.necessary, city officials need to document the circumstances, preparing reports and taking photographs to support and defend their actions if necessary. 5. Demolitions 00,ofkfinneapoTis v. State statutes, as well as some city ordinances, provide for the destruction Meldahl, 607 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). of buildings, structures, or other nuisance situations. As a drastic, Minn. stat. § 463.16. irreversible solution to nuisance conditions, demolitions should only be See LMC information memo, Dangerous Properties. used as a last resort and after all statutory and procedural requirements are strictly followed. When repairs or alterations can be made to remedy a hazardous situation, repairs should generally be ordered, rather than destruction of the property. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/28/2013 Public Nuisances Page 20 LAUDERDALE COUNCIL ACTION FORM Action Requested Consent Public Hearing Discussion Action Resolution Work Session X Meeting Date October 14, 2014 ITEM NUMBER LA Snow Removal STAFF INITIAL APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATOR DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE AND PAST COUNCIL ACTION: One of the first things on my to-do list when I return to work full time is to find a company to perform snow removal on Larpenteur Avenue for this snow season. As you may recall, the Council adopted a sidewalk maintenance policy that states the City will remove snow along Lar- penteur Avenue for the detached single-family homeowners. In light snow falls, where alley plowing isn't needed, we anticipate that public works will be able to broom the walkways clean. In heavier snow falls, a contractor will be needed as the snow will need to be removed fairly quickly to prevent it from becoming packed down. Hauling of snow may be necessary in some cases as well. I am running this by the Council one more time to make sure I am clear on the Council's intent. Snow would be removed from TH280 to Malvern Street, the home between the Wellness Center and the BP gas station, and then the homes between Eustis Street and Pleasant Street. I am won- dering if the Council would also like to remove the snow in front of the Korean Service Center to ensure the bus stop area is well maintained? I assume we will learn by trial and error the best plan for snow removal along the corridor. Re- visions can be made the following year. The Council and the business owners along Larpenteur Avenue can also decide whether the City should arrange snow removal for them as well.