HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2002/04/01
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WORKSESSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 1, 2002
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas
Items Discussed Per Consensus
_______ 1. Review Draft Final Plans for the Highway 10 Redevelopment Project
- Lee, Ericson & URS
_______ 2. Rental Licensing Requirements - Anderson
_______ 3. Discussion Regarding Multi-Family and Townhome Requirements –
Ericson
_______ 4. Discuss the Costs and Benefits of Maintaining Rental Properties -
Ericson
_______ 5. Review Draft Ordinance Requiring Certificates of Occupancy for
Industrial/Commercial Occupancy Changes - Ericson
_______ 6. Introduction of water into Spring Lake - Lee
_______ 7. Trunk Highway 10 (TH10) Interregional Corridor Study - Lee
_______ 8. Trunk Highway 10 (TH10) Noise Abatement Issues – Lee
_______ 9. Discuss Revised Version of Chapter 701: Animals- Brennan
10. Next Council Work Session: May 6, 2002
Next Council Meeting: April 13, 2002
Item No. 1
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: County Road 10 Redevelopment Project
Review Draft Final Plans
Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
Background
At a Council Work Session on January 14, 2002, the County Road 10
Redevelopment Project was presented to the Council. This project includes the
redesign and realignment of several intersections along the County Road 10
corridor and includes pedestrian pathways located on both sides of County Road
10. Of the several intersections presented, each had to two or three design
options associated with it. Attributes of each of these design options were
discussed and a preferred option for each intersection was selected. In addition
to the intersections design, other related questions and issues existed, including
emergency vehicle access and wetland impacts.
On January 30, 2002, the City’s Community Development Director and Public
Works Director met with the consultant (URS Inc.) to discuss this project. The
main focus of this project involves changing the intersection geometrics of Co
Rd. H2 and Long Lake Road where they intersect with Co. Rd. 10. The
intersections of Groveland Road and Spring Lake Road with Co. Rd. 10 were
originally part of the project. They have since been excluded from the
implementation phase of this project. They will, however, remain in the project
report in the event it is decided to implement them at a later date.
Discussion
URS Inc. has completed draft plans for this project and will be presenting them at
the Work Session. Attached are reduced copies of the various segments of this
project. The focus of this meeting will be to discuss these draft plans and make
revisions, if necessary, based on Council direction. The desired result is for staff
to obtain a level of comfort as to what Council is willing to support with regard to
the project’s scope and design, as well as the City’s financial commitment.
Funding
On March 21, 2002, the City’s Community Development Director and Public
Works Director met with the consultant (URS Inc.) to discuss funding issues
associated with this project. Attached is a memorandum composed by Karl Keel
of URS relevant to obtaining funding for a project of this nature.
The main point with regard to obtaining funding is to formalize the project to the
greatest extent as possible.
Once the plan is as formalized as possible, the next step is to seek federal funds.
Typically, the maximum amount of federal funds would be eighty percent (80%)
of the total project cost. The remaining twenty percent (20%) is derived from local
funds. Which may include: Municipal and County State aid funds, local
assessments, and other grant programs. It should also be pointed out that local
units of government are typically responsible for right-of-way acquisition.
What’s Next
Once general support from the Council is obtained, two public informational
meetings will be held in late April or early May to present the draft plan and get
feedback. Following the public informational meetings, the issue will be placed on
a Council Workshop agenda, tentatively in June. At that time, the Council will be
provided a project update, a summary of the public meetings, and the input
received. The actual construction is currently anticipated sometime between the
2006 and 2008 construction seasons. However, this date could be moved up if
funds are available.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this project.
Specifically, staff is looking for Council input on the design and funding aspects.
Staff would also like direction from Council as to whether they would like to
proceed with this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
MEMORANDUM
Thresher
Square
700 Third Street
South
Minneapolis, MN
55415
Phone: (612)
370-0700
Fax: (612) 370-
1378
To: Todd Halunen, ASLA Copy: File: 34306-002-
0301
From: Karl Keel, PE
Date: February 27, 2002
Subject: TEA21 Funding for Mounds View
As we discussed, the City of Mounds View is completing a plan to improve the
safety of Hwy 10 through the City. The plan proposes a number of
improvements including pavement rehabilitation, intersection realignments,
pathway construction, stormwater improvements, street lighting and landscaping.
The following is a summary of our discussion regarding potential funding sources
for the proposed improvements.
General Comments
Many funding sources select projects competitively. Often, granting agencies
are interested in “real” projects that are supported by the community. In many
cases, projects must demonstrate that they have received community input and
that they are supported locally. The City of Mounds View should consider
formally approving the project plan. Such an approval could be a resolution
accepting the study and directing staff to pursue its implementation or inclusion
of the plan in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Occasionally funding sources avail themselves that are looking for projects that
are ready to be implemented. A good example is the extra transportation dollars
allocated by the State Legislature last year. The City may wish to move their
project closer to implementation by completing feasibility reports, preparing
preliminary plans, acquisition of key Right-of-way or other activities that could
slow future implementation.
It is helpful to have project support from local Legislators, County
Commissioners, Met Council representatives and other elected officials. Many
grant programs and selected projects, as well as special legislative
appropriations, are ultimately approved by elected officials.
Potential Funding Sources
Federal Transportion Dollars (TEA 21). TEA 21 dollars are accessible through a
competitive section process administered by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
and Metropolitan Council. The last solicitation was in Fall 2001. The next is
anticipated in Fall 2003. TEA 21 is split into a number of different funding catagories.
This entire project would most likely fall under the Surface Transportation Program
(STP), Highway Safety Funds (HES). The trail and streetscape elements could be
funded in the Enhancements Program (EN).
Municipal and County State Aid. These dollars, collected primarily from gas tax
revenues, are distributed to the County and City to be used to maintain the collector and
arterial roadway system. The majority of improvements proposed on HWY 10 could be
funded through State Aid. The question is: Does the County and/or City have State Aid
dollars available? Ramsey County has more roadway needs than available funding. To
help stretch their available resources, the County has developed a cost participation
policy that requires local communities to fund significant portions of County roadway
projects. The most common local participation items includes the acqusition of right-of-
way, pathway construction, landscaping and a portion of the cost of paved shoulders and
curb and gutter. The City is allowed to use their State Aid money to fund the local share
of County roadway projects. State Aid rules allow communities to spend 10% of their
annual construction allocation on landscaping and streetscape improvements.
Assessments. State law allows cities to levy assessments against benefiting properties
for projects like the one proposed in the City of Mounds View. The test for such
assessments is that the assessment must not exceed the benefit to the assessed property –
usually measured by an increase in market value. The proposed improvements will
improve the overall safety and aethetics in the project area an will be a benefit to
adjoining properties. Any assessments should be consistant with past City practice and
policy.
Other Grant Programs. Many State Agencies have various grant programs that award
smaller amounts, less than $100,000, to project components. Typically, these grant
programs solicit projects annually.
• DNR Trails ($50,000 Range) – The DNR has a number of smaller grant programs
(Outdoor Recreation Grant, Local Trails Connections Grant, Regional Trial Grant) for
different types of pathways.
• Metropolitan Council ($50,000 - $1,000,000 Range) – Livable Communities
Demonstration Account for projects that implement Smart Growth principles,
MetroEnvironment Partnership Grant Program to fund stormwater improvement
projects.
• Minnesota Safety Council ($20,000 Range) -- Minnesota Safety Council Crosswalk
Safety Grant
Item No: 3
Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
Type of Business: Worksession City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discussion Regarding Townhomes and Multi-Family
Dwelling Zoning Requirements
Date of Report: March 27, 2002
Background:
In our continuing efforts to review, clarify and improve our City Codes, staff has reviewed the
zoning requirements regarding townhomes and multi family dwellings. It appears as though
the construction of medium and high-density multi-family dwellings (apartment complexes) is
favored over owner-occupied townhomes. Staff and the Planning Commission believe that if
anything, this should be reversed so that owner-occupied townhomes are encouraged with
multi-family rentals still being allowed, albeit conditionally.
Existing Zoning Code:
The Zoning Code in Section 1108 currently read as follows:
1108.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the R-3, Medium Density Residential District is to provide
for medium density housing in multiple family structures ranging up to and including six (6) units and
directly related complementary uses.
1108.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an R-3 District:
Multiple family dwelling structures containing six (6) or less dwelling units.
1108.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-3 District (requiring a
conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title):
Townhouses up to six (6) units as regulated herein.
The Zoning Code in Section 1109 currently read as follows:
1109.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of the R-4, High Density Residential District is to provide for
high density residential uses and directly related complementary uses.
1109.02: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in R-4 District:
All permitted uses allowed in an R-3 District.
Multiple family dwellings.
1109.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-4 District (requiring a
conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title):
Subd. 4. Townhouses as regulated herein.
Discussion:
Townhome Report
April 1, 2002
Page 2
The effect of the zoning requirements is that an apartment complex is a permitted use
within the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. Owner-occupied townhome units are an
underrepresented housing option in Mounds View and are arguably a preferable housing
alternative from the City’s standpoint of wanting to provide more life-cycle housing
opportunities. Owner-occupied townhomes however require a conditional use permit. If
the City’s desire is to encourage one type of housing over another, it would seem
counteractive to subject townhomes to additional requirements and a more extensive
review.
Given that, staff has begun drafting changes to the Zoning Code to reflect the City’s
preference of owner-occupied housing over rental housing. The Planning Commission
has reviewed these proposed changes and is in support of them. The changes will result
in multi-family construction, rather than townhomes, being required to go through the
conditional use permit (CUP) process. A question, however, can be raised at this point:
Should condominiums (which are essentially owner-occupied apartments) be treated as
townhomes or multi-family apartments? (They are currently defined as multi-family use,
not subject to CUP review.) One could argue that an apartment building has the same
impact upon a neighborhood regardless of the ownership status of the individual units, in
which case it should be subject to the CUP requirements. Does the Council agree with
that assessment?
In addition to these changes, staff will work on adding a new definition to the zoning code
to address a more recent example of higher density housing—detached townhomes.
Other changes will add design requirements and other conditions to multi-family projects
to ensure (or better ensure!) that multi-family projects are of a high quality and will be an
asset to the neighborhood in which they are located.
Last, it should be noted that the Planning Commission and City Council would review
ANY townhome or multi-family development, regardless of it being rental or owner-
occupied, according to the rules in Section 1006.06, pertaining to Development Controls.
Recommendation:
Discuss the proposed changes regarding townhomes and multiple-family developments
and provide some feedback regarding the issue of condominium projects. Staff will
continue to work on these changes and will report back to the Council with a draft
ordinance for your consideration.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
Item No: 4
Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
Type of Business: Worksession City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Future of City’s Rental Properties
Date of Report: March 27, 2002
Background:
The City owns two single-family residential properties which were purchased with the
intent to foster redevelopment. Both properties, 7861 Groveland Road and 3016 County
Road H2, are currently leased on a month-to-month basis. The monthly rent for the
Groveland Road property is $975; for the County Road H2 property, the monthly rent is
$825. Unfortunately, collection of the rent and the oversight has proven to be an
administrative headache.
Discussion:
With more than a year of experience in maintaining the rental properties, staff thought it
would be a good idea to reevaluate the City’s options and to make a determination
whether to continue renting the properties on a month-to-month basis or to explore other
alternatives for the property.
In a perfect world, renting the properties while the City awaits redevelopment offers is a
great idea. Collectively, the City would take in $21,600 annually, which is a pretty good
return on the investment. However, at least 20% of that amount is spent on repairs,
maintenance and property taxes, which results in a net of about $17,000; still a
substantial annual return for properties being held for future redevelopment.
Unfortunately, a percentage of the rent proceeds are also used to offset the staff time
and administration of the homes, and I would argue that once the staff and administrative
component is figured in, the annual return is minimized to the point of asking the
question, “Is it worth it?”
Both tenants have been habitually late in paying their rents, often going more than one
month before getting caught up from previous months back-rent. (Rent for each month is
considered “late” if not received by the tenth day of that month.) The expectation has
regrettably shifted so that we now expect the rent to be late. This shift in expectation
caused an oversight on the City’s part, whereas the tenant at 7861 Groveland has fallen
several months behind in his rent. Multiple letters were sent without response until the
tenant finally made contact with staff in February, apologizing for his situation yet desiring to
work out a repayment schedule. We consented to a repayment agreement on the condition
that the March rent would be paid in full on or before its due date or we would proceed with
eviction. Unfortunately, the due date came and went, and we have received no payments
from the tenant. Kennedy & Graven were subsequently asked to draft the eviction
paperwork and begin the process of collecting what the City is owed in back rent.
In the case of 3016 County Road H2, the tenant is currently behind by $100 plus the $25
late fee. We have also been notified that the tenant is behind on her utilities to the point
Rental Property Report
April 1, 2002
Page 2
a shut-off notice has been issued. Structurally, there are some issues with the house
that will require substantial repairs to be made in the near future if the City intends to
continue utilizing the property as a rental. The City has already spent hundreds of dollars
repairing roof deficiencies and servicing the oil-fired furnace, with the work done best
described as a stop-gap approach.
Last, it should be noted that these two properties do not generate or provide income to
the general fund. The properties were purchased with tax increment funds and any
income derived from the properties is also considered TIF.
What are the Options?
There are a few options that the City can consider regarding the two rental properties.
The following is not a complete list, but should constitute a range of possible options from
which the Council may choose.
1. Enter into an agreement with a local or regional housing authority or agency and turn
over all management responsibility and oversight to the authority. This is an
appealing option and would potentially guarantee an annual income without any of the
administrative headaches. The downside is that with such an agreement, you
typically lose out on the flexibility of a month-to-month lease. Housing agencies or
organizations would prefer a longer-term agreement.
2. Sell the homes to a house-mover and have them removed off-site. While this is a
viable option, the market for older homes in need of repair is not strong at this time.
(Was it ever strong?) Case in point, when Messiah Lutheran Church expanded their
facility at the corner of H2 and Knollwood, they had two homes available that they
attempted to sell and have moved off-site. While this did occur eventually, they
almost had to give the homes away to make it worth someone’s effort to move them.
Still, this could result in a few thousand dollars put back into the City’s TIF accounts.
3. Demo the houses, retain the cleared land as an incentive for redevelopment. This
option, while more of an immediate response, would cost approximately $5,000 for
each property and would seem wasteful considering the focus on affordable housing.
4. Continue renting the one property on County Road H2 for as long as the tenant stays
caught up with rent and utilities or until the City is presented with a redevelopment
opportunity for the area. Demolish or remove the home from Groveland Road and
prepare the site for redevelopment.
5. Subdivide the County Road H2 property and sell the “as is” home and subdivided lot
to a developer. Offer a 5 to 10% discount if the developer agrees to demo the house
and replace it with a new, larger, more expensive home. Retain the back two-thirds of
the lot for future redevelopment.
Recommendation:
Given the amount of staff time having been spent on the rental properties and the
Rental Property Report
April 1, 2002
Page 3
considering the many problems we’ve had and the legal fees we are about to expend,
Staff’s recommendation would be to go with the last option, Option 5.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
C:\WINNT\Profiles\Jime\Favorites\City Council Stuff\Misc Reports\Rental Housing Report - April 1, 2002.doc
Item No: 5
Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
Type of Business: Worksession City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Discuss Possible Changes to the City Code which
Would Require a Certificate of Occupancy when a
Change of Building Occupancy Occurs in the
Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts
Date of Report: March 27, 2002
Background:
Once again, staff is taking the opportunity to make an improvement to the City Code
which would require City notification and inspection every time there is a change in
occupancy for commercial and industrial businesses.
Discussion:
There are a couple reasons why this is a good idea, and they all focus on public safety.
1. The first issue deals with fire response. Often times, our volunteer firefighters enter a
business without knowing the nature of the business or the types of materials or
hazards that may be present. This lack of knowledge puts the fire responders in
dangerous, life-threatening situations that can be avoided with the passage of this
type of amendment to the Code.
2. Second, when a new business takes occupancy in a previously occupied building,
often times there are no interior build-out modifications needed which would warrant
building official and fire marshal review. Since no permit is needed, we are often
unaware when a new business occupies space previously held by another company.
The issue however is not that we don’t know, it is that the new business may
warehouse or produce materials which have a different rating than the previous
business, or may store or handle hazardous materials which may require modified
sprinkler specifications. Without such a review, not only is the fire department put at
risk in the event of a fire, the heath and life-safety of the employees are put at risk if
the sprinklers are inadequate or improperly located.
3. Last, the Police Department maintains an emergency call list of every business in the
City so that in the event of an after-hours emergency, there is someone that can be
contacted, or someone that can provide access to the building to turn off false alarms.
A change of occupancy without notification to the City could result in delayed
emergency responses and delayed alarm shut-offs or compromised security in the
event of a break in.
And the Solution is…?
The City’s Building Official / Fire Marshal has researched this issue and found that some
cities require a certificate of occupancy every time a commercial/industrial building
changes occupants, based upon a requirement under Chapter 1 of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC), which states that “No building shall be used or occupied...until the building
official has issued a certificate of occupancy..." One could argue that this only pertains to
NEW construction, so cities such as Blaine took a more proactive approach and added
the following language to it’s city code:
Certificate of Occupancy Required
A certificate of occupancy shall be required whenever:
1. Any structure is erected or moved.
2. Any portion of any existing industrial or commercial structure is structurally
altered or remodeled
3. Any existing industrial or commercial structure changes occupancy
classification or is occupied by a new tenant or owner.
No structure or portion of a structure shall be occupied prior to obtaining a
certificate of occupancy.
All certificates of occupancy shall be applied for prior to occupying the building or
structure. Said certificates shall be issued within 5 days after the erection, moving
or alternation shall have been finally approved.
While there may be some tweaking of this language, it is clear and concise and would be
added under Section 1006.04 entitled “Occupancy of Building.”
The only real issue with this change is that it would take some time and effort to ensure
that each and every business was aware of the change in occupancy provisions. The
larger owners and property managers (Mounds View Square, Silver View Plaza, Mounds
View Business Park, etc.) would be asked to communicate this to their existing
businesses and to any prospective businesses they may lease space to in the future.
Recommendation:
If the Council is in agreement, staff will prepare an ordinance with the above language (or
something reasonably similar) for first and second reading at your April 8th and 22nd
meetings.
_____________________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
763-717-4021
C:\WINNT\Profiles\Jime\Favorites\City Council Stuff\Misc Reports\Change in Occupancy Report - April 1, 2002.doc
Item No. 7
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Trunk Highway 10 (TH 10) Interregional Corridor
Study Update Report / Comments and Issues to
be Addressed / Draft Resolution to Review
Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
Introduction
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has developed a 2,900-
mile system of priority highway corridors connecting the major regional centers
around the State. The objective of this effort is to support economic vitality by
focusing the Department’s efforts to identify, prioritize and select highway
segments for improvements on the small fraction of roads (about 2% of the
State’s total road mileage) that move the bulk of the State’s people and goods
(more than one-third of total vehicle miles of travel).
Mn/DOT has selected seven corridors on the Interregional Corridor System to be
part of the initial study effort; Trunk Highway (TH) 10 from TH 24 (Clear Lake) to
I-35W (Mounds View) was included. A map of this corridor is displayed on the
next page.
The study process that produced the Interregional Corridor Management Plans
(IRCMPs) consisted of an extensive technical analysis combined with a
comprehensive public and agency involvement program, in order to establish a
shared vision of how the TH 10 corridor should look and operate in the future.
The technical analysis included both documenting the existing and forecasted
future conditions, identifying deficiencies and then developing and evaluating
alternative improvement strategies. The public and agency involvement program
offered opportunities to share information in a variety of settings, including,
participation on advisory committees, public open houses, city council workshops
and presentations at a county board meeting.
Public and Agency Involvement
The purpose of the public and agency involvement program was to ensure that
affected government agencies, residents, and business along the TH 10 Corridor
had ample opportunity to participate in the planning process. The objective was
to provide a forum for two-way communication; residents, businesses and local
officials identifying concerns, constraints and opportunities and the planning team
sharing the results of the various technical analyses.
Participants in the public and agency involvement process included area
residents, motorists, and members of the business community, in addition to staff
from local units of government along the TH 10 corridor, staff from state and
regional transportation planning departments, staff from state environmental
agencies, and state legislators. Representing Mounds View in this process were
Mayor Sonterre and the Community Development Director, Jim Ericson.
Existing and Forecast Conditions
The first step in the corridor planning process consisted of documenting both
existing and forecasted roadway, demographic and land use characteristics, and
conducting an environment overview of the corridor.
The roadway characteristics were documented using data obtained from
Mn/DOT, cities and counties along the corridor, and field observations by project
staff.
The basic 3-C (continuing, comprehensive and coordinated) comprehensive
planning approach was used to examine demographic and land use issues along
the TH 10 corridor. One-on-one meetings with each community were held to
obtain a variety of land use, zoning, and population data. This data was then
reviewed and summarized by growth segment and sub-area along the corridor.
The information suggests significant population increases (on the order of 60 to
over 400 percent) and a strong growth trend in commercial development can be
expected in the corridor. The forecasted future residential, industrial, and
commercial development could result in high levels of traffic generation and
demands for additional access to TH 10.
To obtain an understanding of the environmental constraints and opportunities
within the TH 10 corridor, a series of regional and statewide databases were
reviewed and various regulatory agencies were contacted to identify
environmental resources and assess the potential for impacts. This
environmental overview was not intended to be a comprehensive review of all
environmental concerns and does not constitute an environmental review
document (Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement). The
review process indicates that environmental issues exist throughout the corridor
at some level and that additional (more detailed) analysis of possible
environmental consequences will be required for any subsequent TH 10
improvement projects.
Identification of Deficiencies
The process of identifying deficiencies along the TH 10 corridor consisted of
comparing the previously documented key existing and forecasted roadway
conditions in each of the twelve roadway segments to ten the established
corridor performance measures for traffic operations, safety, mobility, access and
the potential for traffic signal proliferation. This process was developed to answer
the following critical questions:
• Are there deficiencies in the corridor?
• If so, where are they?
• What are the characteristics?
The process was set up to answer these questions prior to developing potential
improvement strategies because not all roadway improvements are equally
capable of mitigating the entire array of transportation deficiencies. Therefore,
having a basic understanding of the characteristics of the problem allows for the
development of the most cost-effective solutions.
Identification, Evaluation, and Selection of Alternatives
In order to mitigate the deficiencies identified, a variety of alternative roadway
improvements were developed and evaluated. Basically, the improvements
focused on improving mobility and reducing congestion by either increasing the
number of through lanes along TH 10 or increasing the efficiency of the existing
through lanes by converting them from an expressway to a freeway design (this
type of conversion more than doubles the capacity). Safety deficiencies were
addressed by reducing the level of access to the roadway by eliminating local
road intersections and driveways, redirecting access to existing or new local/
supporting roadways, and converting at-grade signalized intersections to grade
separated interchanges.
The alternative considered for the segment in the Blaine / Mounds View Area
was to provide a continuous 8-lane freeway by eliminating lane drops. This
alternative was then screened to a short list of projects based on an evaluation
that considered the ability to meet mobility, safety, and access objectives, project
costs versus anticipated benefits, consistency with community plans, and the
ability to support alternative modes of transportation. This evaluation process
resulted in identifying twelve projects, which included Project Area 8 (TH 610 to I-
35W) – Convert to 8-lane freeway.
It was determined that if all of the projects were implemented, at a total cost of
approximately $465 million, the TH 10 corridor would meet or exceed all of the
established performance objectives through the year 2025. It was also
determined that the total benefits associated with implementation (travel time
reductions and safety improvements) would exceed the total costs.
The freeway improvements in Blaine and Mounds View received the highest
benefit to cost ratio of 4.3 (B/C = 4.3). The next closest project was Conversion to
a freeway in Anoka with a benefit to cost ratio of 2.0 (B/C = 2.0)
Alternative Staging and Implementation
The improvement projects were prioritized based on three key factors: the
number of performance measures met, cost-effectiveness, and design
consistency. This process resulted in a list of short, medium, and long-term
projects. Unfortunately, the freeway improvements in Coon Rapids, Blaine, and
Mounds View were classified as a long term project.
Example Resolution
Attached is a copy of a draft resolution of support and adoption of the TH 10
Interregional Corridor Management Plan. It is mainly documentation of support
for the plan. Staff has reviewed the draft resolution and recommends its adoption
at a subsequent City Council meeting.
There is a section of the resolution whereby local government agencies can bring
forward issues for resolution and discussion with the TH 10 Corridor
Management Team. This represents an opportunity for the City to raise issues to
discuss or to memorialize the City’s position on issues related to the study. One
issue Council may be interested in expressing is the promotion and support of
any alterations to TH 10 (lane additions and extensions) within the Mounds View
area that increases capacity. This would relieve the current bottleneck for east
bound AM commuters but also would require the implementation of a noise
abatement strategy (noise wall construction). A second point to make is that
Mn/DOT’s cost estimation for the segment of TH 10 in Mounds View does not
reflect the construction of a noise wall (Appendix F of the TH 10 IRC Plan). This
should be brought to the attention of the TH 10 Corridor Management Team.
Schedule
April 3, 2002 Policy and Technical Advisory Committee (PAC/TAC)
Meeting
Public Information Open Houses – 4:30 to 7:00 PM
April 9, 2002 Big Lake Middle School, 501 Minnesota Avenue
April 10, 2002 Coon Rapids City Center, 11155 Robinson Drive
May 22, 2002 Final Corridor Management Plan is distributed to
municipalities/agencies.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, staff is looking for Council input on what issues, if any, they would
like to be brought forward to Mn/DOT and the TH 10 Corridor Management
Team.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
(Insert City, County, Township, etc.name)
RESOLUTION NO.________
ACCEPTING, SUPPORTING, AND ADOPTING THE TH 10 INTERREGIONAL
CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, Minnesota’s State Transportation Plan recognizes the significance of
interregional highway corridors in providing citizens and businesses throughout the State
of Minnesota with high quality access to recreational, educational, employment and
health care opportunities, and to the transport of products and services produced by our
local economy to regional, national, and global markets; and,
WHEREAS, the TH 10 Interregional Corridor has been identified by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation as a High Priority Corridor from I-35 W to TH 169 and as
a Medium Priority Corridor from TH 169 to TH 24 in Clear Lake that enhances the
economic vitality of the state providing essential access for the central region of the state
in Sherburne, Anoka, and Ramsey Counties to major economic markets and cultural
centers including the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area; and,
WHEREAS, the continued growth of the region is leading to increasing travel demand in
the corridor which, if unmanaged, can negatively affect the level of performance, safety,
and congestion experienced by users of the corridor; and,
WHEREAS, community leaders, motorists, and road authorities have identified this
growing travel demand and development pressure as a concern with potential negative
consequences for mobility and safety in the corridor, with the potential to degrade the
performance level now provided by the corridor, and the resulting implications for the
economy and quality of life of the region; and,
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, recognizing the potential
impact of continued growth pressure on the corridor, has completed an Interregional
Corridor Plan in partnership with its partners along the corridor to look at the long-term
role that the TH 10 Corridor will play in meeting the transportation needs of the central
region of Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, it is imperative at this critical time, with continued growth occurring in the
region, that a long-term vision for the type of service that the TH 10 Corridor needs to
provide be established and that the steps are identified and initiated to:
1. Preserve the function of the corridor through the advance planning, not only for
the TH 10 Corridor but for the local supporting street systems and land use and
development patterns; and,
2. Secure the needed funding to pursue the vision established for the corridor; and,
3. Establish a plan of action for the development of planning and programming
activities that will proactively address the needs identified.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of
____) endorses the vision and corridor management plan for the TH 10 Corridor.
FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of ____)
endorses the concept that an adequate network of supporting roads is necessary to attain
the TH 10 Corridor vision and that the roadway networks identified in the TH 10
Corridor Management Plan will be considered as interim guides until such time as
refinements to these improvements are identified.
FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of ____)
recognizes the regional significance of the corridor in supporting the regional economy
and intends to reflect the TH 10 Corridor Management Plan vision, strategies, and
policies through updates to the (insert City, County, Township, etc of ____) land use and
transportation plans as well as subdivision ordinances.
FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of ____)
is committed to working in partnership with Mn/DOT and the other partners along the
corridor as a member of the TH 10 Corridor Management Team in order to achieve the
vision and implement the recommendations of the TH 10 Corridor Management Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of ____) intends
to bring forward the following issues for resolution and discussion with the TH 10
Corridor Management Team:
1. List Issues Here
Item No. 8
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Item Title/Subject: Trunk Highway 10 (TH 10) Noise Abatement Issue
Update Report
Meeting Date: April 1, 2002
Background / History
The issue of noise abatement along the Trunk Highway 10 (TH 10) has been
discussed on several occasions, at several different venues, involving several
City, State, and neighborhood representatives. The background and history of
this issue has been intentionally excluded from this report. Rather, the report will
focus on the current status of this issue and offer options.
Meeting with Mn/DOT
On February 14, 2002, Public Works Director Greg Lee, Community
Development Director Jim Ericson, and resident Michele Sandback met with
representatives from MnDOT to discuss the TH 10 Noise Abatement Issue.
Attached are the notes of that meeting composed by Jim Ericson (See
Attachment).
Options
Based on the meeting with Mn/DOT there are two distinct options the City has:
Option 1: Install Wall as Required by Law – Staff Recommended
Option 2: Construct required wall to the east – Mn/DOT Proposal
Option 1: Install Wall as Required by Law – Staff Recommended
Under this option the City would direct Mn/DOT to install a Noise Wall starting at
the point where it currently terminates and extending it approximately 1200 feet
to the east. It would terminate at the point where the three east bound lanes
reduce to two lanes. This is a point where the creek crosses TH 10 and where
the chain link fence on the south side of TH 10 has a jog in it.
The wall would be constructed by Mn/DOT and completely at Mn/DOT’s
expense, regardless of the project cost.
Option 2: Construct required wall to the east – Mn/DOT Proposal
Under this option Mn/DOT would enter into a joint powers agreement with the
City of Mounds View and allocate a total of $300,000 to be used to fund a noise
wall. As part of the joint powers agreement, the City would be the project
administrator and would need to hire an engineering consultant. This “city”
consultant would design a noise wall at a location along the TH 10 corridor
specified by the City. This location would need to be approved by Mn/DOT. The
“city” consultant would develop plans and specifications for the wall with the help
of Mn/DOT. The plans and specification would then be sent to Mn/DOT for
approval. The City would then advertise for bids and award a contract. The City
would be responsible for administering the construction, including inspection.
Upon completion of the wall, Mn/DOT would review it and, if they find it
acceptable, would require the City to dedicate it to them. Mn/DOT would be
responsible for future maintenance.
Potential Ramifications Under Option 2: Mn/DOT’s Proposal
The City needs to be aware of the following ramifications under Option 2:
First and foremost: if the City rejects Option 2 and implements Option
1, eventually Mn/DOT will be required to extend the existing noise wall
along the south side of TH 10 for the entire border with the City. This
should be the long term and ultimate goal for the City.
If Option 2 is Implemented, the City will most likely be creating a gap in
the wall in the area of Arden Park. This gap may never be filled in.
Noise abatement measures may never be applied Arden Park area
and the properties along Long Lake Road. If noise abatement
measures, such as a wall, are desired at a future date, it may be done
solely at the City’s expense (not Mn/DOT’s).
Because the project cost of extending the third east bound lane on TH
10 will go down dramatically after the City builds the wall, Mn/DOT may
implement this project much sooner than currently planned. The net
result is that the City sacrifices noise protection for part of the TH 10
corridor and Mn/DOT can correct a bottle neck situation for a greatly
reduced cost.
Consider: Mn/DOT’s goals and objectives may not be consistent with
the City’s.
Mn/DOT is only giving a financial commitment of $300,000 for this
option. The actual cost may be much higher.
The City will expend several thousand dollars in staff time
administrating this project.
Other Issues
Mn/DOT is currently performing a prioritization noise study for properties along
Trunk Highways with in their jurisdiction. This will be done in the spring of 2003.
The above mentioned portion of TH 10 is included in the study. It is currently
ranked 174 out of 800. However, Mn/DOT is re-ranking and reprioritizing the site
within the study. It was indicated that this portion of TH 10 could move up
substantially. Staff recommends that the City continue to work with Mn/DOT on
this study and advocate the installation of a noise wall as soon as possible.
Without implementing noise abatement techniques, the closest the City could
allow development to TH 10 is about 300 to 400 feet. There is a law that prohibits
building if state noise standards are not met. The City needs to consider this
when evaluating development proposals or the issuance of building permits in
this area. Mn/DOT has stated that if they get calls from residents whereby the
City has allowed development in areas that do not meet state noise standards,
Mn/DOT will inform them that the City has violated this law and that they need to
take this matter up with the City.
It’s been some time since the City has held a neighborhood meeting pertaining to
this issue. Staff would like direction from Council as to whether (and possibly
when) a meeting should be held. This meeting could be held prior to or after the
City Council takes official action on this matter.
Recommendation:
Staff is looking for direction from the City Council pertaining to this matter.
Specifically, staff is looking for Council input on which option to pursue and
whether (and possibly when) the City should hold a neighborhood meeting
regarding this issue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Lee, Director of Public Works
Meeting Notes
On February 14, 2002, Public Works Director Greg Lee, Community Development
Director Jim Ericson and resident Michele Sandback met with representatives from
MnDOT to discuss the unresolved issues associated with the absence of a sound
wall on the south side of Highway 10, between County Road J and 35W. The
MnDOT representatives were Frank Pafko, Area Manager; Peter Wasko, Noise
Abatement Specialist; and Beth Neuendorf, Area Engineer.
The representatives from MnDOT brought with them a copy of the Highway 10
survey that showed the area from 35W to County Road J. The areas where sound
walls currently exist were pointed out, and the areas lacking a sound wall were also
identified. In addition, it was pointed out to us where the shift in lanes occurred
from three to two and then back to three lanes.
Pafko summarized what has happened in the past, referencing a meeting at City
Hall last August with the mayor, Sen. Chaudhary, Ms. Sandback and City Staff.
Pafko reiterated that MnDOT would contribute $300,000 toward sound wall
expansion, whether that be expanding the length of the existing wall another 1,000
feet or contributing the money to the City for a more comprehensive solution. The
$300,000 was arrived at assuming the 20-foot tall wall should have been extended
1,000 feet beyond where it now terminates at $300 a lineal foot. Pafko agreed that
if costs of wall construction increased due to inflation or if it can be shown that the
wall should have been extended 1,250 instead of 1,000 feet, he would attempt to
get more money for the City. As it is now, however, they’ve committed $300,000.
If eastbound Highway 10 were expanded to three lanes, MnDOT would be required
to install a noise wall or some other kind or combination of noise mitigation
features. And while it appears as though the third lane is already a necessity (the
models actually indicate that FOUR lanes would be required to satisfy existing and
projected volumes) there is no guarantee WHEN the third lane would be added,
especially considering the current budget problems. Could be five years, could be
fifteen. Sandback asked if the City did install noise abatement measures at its own
expense, would MnDOT reimburse the City if the third lane were added the next
year or at some future date? Pafko said that while anything was possible, he
thought it to be unlikely.
Pafko discussed the Highway 10 Interregional Corridor Study (IRC) that is nearing
completion and discussed their Transportation System Plan (TSP). Wasko
discussed the rankings of the various areas that are in need of noise abatement,
and this part of Highway 10 ranked 174th out of more than 800 sites. Wasko
suggested that he was in the process of reranking and reprioritizing the sites,
combining some sites where logic would dictate while taking more factors into
consideration. It’s likely, he indicated, that the Mounds View site could move up
substantially given the increased volume, but also pointed out that often increased
traffic had the effect of lowering peak noise volumes because vehicles would be
traveling at slower speeds. Even if the site did get a higher ranking, it would not
crack the top twenty given other areas of higher priority. It seemed as though the
top twenty was a level at which funding was assured? The question was asked
about the probability of reducing the speed limit and the response was an
unwavering and emphatic “no”.
Sandback asked what could be done about jake-braking trucks, if a sign could be
installed. While no sign could be lawfully installed to prohibit jake-braking, a sign
could be added that would instruct motorists that noise ordinances would be
enforced; however without diligent enforcement, the signs would do little good,
and may even encourage some disreputable truckers to jake-brake simply out of
spite. It was pointed out that there might not be a sign that alerts drivers to the
turn onto 35W. If not, and if the design speed of the turn would warrant signage,
that could help reduce jake-braking as the truckers would at least be expecting the
turn and would slow down in a more gradual fashion. It was not clear if anyone was
going to follow up on whether the turn warranted signage or not.
There was some discussion about the potential for another housing development
along Highway 10, in the Laport Meadows area. Ericson asked about the noise
mitigation standards and requirements, and how far away from the lanes of traffic a
home would have to be for it to fall below the threshold requiring noise abatement.
Wasko suggested this number could be anywhere from 400 to 500 feet from the
lanes of traffic, depending upon the volume, terrain and vegetation between the
home and the road. They suggested that MPCA and MAC might have good
information on sound proofing a home, either at initial construction or via a retrofit
process.
Ericson asked about the landscape partnership program where MnDOT would
supply landscaping materials at no cost to the City if it were to undertake a wall or
berm project. Pafko verified this program was still available and is a good way to
get landscaping materials at no cost as long as the City had volunteers to
coordinate the planting. Lee asked about design issues and letting of contracts,
Pafko responded that Wasko would be able to provide (in whole or part) the
necessary technical and design assistance if the City were to fund a wall on its own,
and the cooperative agreement between the City and MnDOT would identify other
issues concerning contract administration, bids and other technical components of
such a project.
As the meeting neared conclusion, the Highway 10 survey was reexamined. The
question was raised at how many feet of pavement would be needed to complete
the third lane through this corridor. While only an estimate, it appeared as though
only a half-mile of pavement would be needed. Ericson asked what the cost of
installing the additional lane would be, and Pafko responded that the addition of a
third lane where the topography was pregraded to accommodate such an
expansion would be minimal, perhaps $1 million per mile. Thus assuming a half-
mile was needed, the cost could be as low as $500,000. Installing a 20-foot tall
noise wall for this same distance would be $750,000. The noise wall could
potentially cost more that the highway expansion! It was suggested that the
project might be small enough to just knock off in between other projects if
funding were not an issue.
The meeting ended with reassurances from MnDOT that they would continue to
explore ways to work with the City to resolve the noise issues on the south side of
Highway 10.
Page 1 City of Mounds View
Item No.9
Type of Business: WK
WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing;
CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Tim Brennan, Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief
Item Title/Subject: Revision of Chapter 701: Animals
Date of Report: March 28, 2002
NATURE OF REPORT: Late in 2001 we began looking into revising Chapter 701 of our
Municipal Code which deals with Animals. We found that the language in our ordinance did not
adequately address possible scenarios involving vicious dogs. We obtained model ordinances
from other cities and one model from the League of MN Cities. We compared our existing
ordinance to these samples and also to State Statute. Over the past couple months the
Community Service Officer and myself have gone over all of these documents and tried to
customize our ordinance into a document that would clearly define the city’s expectations in
regards to animals. Attached you will find our existing ordinance with the changes indicated in
blue lettering or strikeouts.
The changes are too numerous to list, but basically we tried to eliminate vague wording. We also
tried to format the layout in a way that seemed to flow more logically. We tried to insert
language that addresses those problems we find ourselves dealing with on a more frequent basis.
And finally, we tried to address issues in a manner that will help to ensure the safety and
enjoyment of the greatest number of citizens of Mounds View.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Tim Brennan
Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief
Page 2 City of Mounds View
TITLE 700
POLICE REGULATIONS
Subject Chapter
Animals and Animal Control ................................. 701
Offenses .................................................................. 702
Minors ................................................................... 703
Page 3 City of Mounds View
701.01 701.02
CHAPTER 701
ANIMALS AND ANIMAL CONTROL
SECTION:
701.01: Community Service Officer
701.02: Pound Established
701.03: Dogs
701.04: Domestic Animals
701.05: Raising of Animals
701.06: Wild Animals
701.07: Violation of Provisions
701.03: Definitions
701.04: Dogs
701.05: Prohibited Activities
701.06: Raising / Keeping Domestic Animals
701.07: Non-Domestic / Wild Animals
701.08: Violation of Provisions
701.01: COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER:
Subd. 1. Office Established: The Council shall, from time to time, appoint such person as the
Council may deem necessary and advisable as Community Service Officer to work with the
police officers department in the enforcement of this Chapter. Chapter and shall be vested
with all authority conferred hereby. The Council may provide for such compensation for a
Community Service Officer as it may deems reasonable.
Subd. 2. Powers and Duties: The Community Service Officer and any all police officers are
empowered to and shall take up and impound any dogs found anywhere including dogs
found on the private property of their owners, within in the Ccity, including dogs found on
the private property of their owners, in violation of this Chapter. in violation of this
Chapter. The Community Service Officer is further empowered and instructed to enter any
private premises where the officer has reasonable cause to believe there is an unlicensed dog
or a dog which is in violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89)
Page 4 City of Mounds View
701.02: POUND ESTABLISHED: The City Council may designate, by resolution, a
privately owned and operated facility designed and operated to house animals with qualified
personnel who shall attend to the facility and animals contained therein as the Municipal Pound.
Such facility may be located within or without Municipality. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89) as the Municipal
Pound, by resolution, a privately owned and operated facility that houses animals and is staffed by
qualified personnel. Such facility may be located within or outside the city.
701.03 701.03 (Rev. 4/98)
701.03: DEFINITIONS:
ANIMAL. Any mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish, bird (including all fowl and poultry) or other
member commonly accepted as part of the animal kingdom. Animals shall be classified as
follows:
Subd. 1. DOMESTIC ANIMALS. Those animals commonly accepted as domesticated
household pets. Unless otherwise defined, domestic animals shall include dogs, cats,
caged birds, gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs, domesticated rabbits, fish, non-
poisonous, non-venomous reptiles or amphibians, and other similar animals.
Subd. 2. FARM ANIMALS. Those animals commonly associated with a farm or an
agricultural setting. Unless otherwise defined, farm animals shall included members
of the equestrian family (horses, mules), bovine family (cows, bulls), sheep, poultry
(chickens, turkeys, pheasants), fowl (ducks, geese), swine (including Vietnamese pot-
bellied pigs), goats, bees, and other animals associated with a farm, ranch, or stable.
Subd. 3. NON-DOMESTIC / WILD ANIMALS. Those animals commonly considered to be
naturally wild and not usually trained or domesticated, or which are commonly
considered to be inherently dangerous to the health, safety, and welfare of people.
Unless otherwise defined, non-domestic / wild animals shall include:
(a) Any member of the large cat family (family felidae) including lions, tigers, cougars,
bobcats, leopards and jaguars, excluding domesticated house cats.
(b) Any naturally wild member of the canine family (family canidae) including wolves,
foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and jackals, excluding domesticated dogs.
(c) Any crossbreeds of wild animals and domestic animals such as the crossbreed
between a wolf and a dog, unless the crossbreed is commonly accepted as a
domesticated house pet.
(d) Any member or relative of the rodent family including any skunk (whether or not
descented), raccoon or squirrel, but excluding those members otherwise defined
or commonly accepted as domesticated pets.
(e) Any poisonous, venomous, or inherently dangerous member of the reptile
family including rattlesnakes, pit vipers, and amphibians such as crocodiles and
Page 5 City of Mounds View
alligators.
(f) Any other animal which is not explicitly listed above, but which can be
reasonably defined by the terms of this section, including but not limited to
bears, deer and game fish.
Subd. 4. AT LARGE. Off the premises of the owner and not under the custody and control of
the owner or other person, either by leash, cord or chained.
Subd. 5. DOG. Canines which are domestic animals.
Subd. 6. OWNER. Any person, persons, firm, association or corporation owning, keeping, or
harboring an animal.
Subd. 7. PRIVATE PROPERTY. All residential premises owned by private individuals,
including all structures located thereon, front yards, side yards and backyards.
Subd. 8. DOG KENNEL:
(a) Residential: Any premises where three (3) or four (4) dogs over six (6) months
of age are owned, boarded, bred, kept, or harbored.
(b) Commercial: Any premises where more than four (4) dogs over six (6) months
of age are owned, boarded, bred, kept, or harbored.
Subd. 9. SUBSTANTIAL BODILY HARM. A substantial disfigurement or a substantial loss
or impairment of the functions of any bodily member or organ, whether temporary or
permanent, or a fracture of any bodily member.
Subd. 10. CITY. Area within the corporate limits of the City of Mounds View.
Subd. 11. VICIOUS ANIMAL. Any animal of a ferocious or vicious character, habit,
disposition, or any animal which has:
(a) killed or inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human, domestic animal, or
farm animal without substantial provocation, or
(b) been involved in two (2) or more biting incidents without substantial
provocation, involving humans, domestic animals or farm animals, within
one year.
701.03: DOGS:
Subd. 1. Definitions: When used in this Section, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this subdivision:
a. RUNNING AT LARGE: Any dog which is not either: (1) Effectively contained within
Page 6 City of Mounds View
a fenced area on private property; or (2) Effectively restrained by chain or leash to private
property with the consent of the property owner; or (3) Effectively restrained by a chain or
leash not exceeding six feet (6’) in length; or (4) Effectively under the control of an owner
by means of a command or signal and on the owner’s premises. (Ord. 613, 4-13-98)
b. DOG KENNEL:
(1) Residential: Any premises where more than two (2) dogs but not more than four
(4) dogs over six (6) months of age are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale 1.
(2) Commercial: Any premises where more than four (4) dogs over six (6) months
of age are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
c. OWNER: Any person, firm, partnership or corporation owning, harboring or keeping a
dog.
d. VICIOUS DOG: One that is habitually unruly and untamed, or one that is a general
public nuisance. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89; 1993 Code)
Subd. 2. Cruelty to Dogs: Minnesota Statutes, sections 343.20 to and including 343.37 are hereby
adopted by reference and shall be in full force and effect in the City as if set out here in full.
Subd. 3. Licensing and Tags:
a. License Required; Fee Established: No dog owner shall keep any dog over six (6)
months of age within the Municipality unless a license has been issued by the
Clerk-Administrator for a fee established by City Council resolution. License shall be
renewed biennially. The fee for licenses obtained for a period of one (1) year or less shall be
one-half (1/2) of the above fees.
b. Rabies Inoculation Certificate: A certification from a veterinarian shall accompany an
application indicating the following:
701.03 701.03
(1) That the dog has been inoculated for rabies within two (2) years from the date of
application.
(2) That said dog has been spayed or neutered, when a license is being sought for a
spayed female or neutered male.
c. Expiration: All licenses issued under this Chapter shall expire on September 31 of the
year of their expiration.
1 See also subdivision 701.03(15) of this Code.
Page 7 City of Mounds View
d. Payment of Fee: It shall be the duty of each owner of a dog to pay the biennial license
fee imposed in subdivision 3a hereof to the Clerk-Administrator before September 1 in the
year which licenses are to be renewed or upon acquiring ownership or possession of any
unlicensed dog or upon establishing residence in Mounds View. The Clerk-Administrator
shall cause a notice of the necessity of paying such license fee to be printed in the City
Newsletter one (1) time before the August 15 of the year in which licenses expire.
e. Receipts and Tags: Upon payment of the license fee, the Clerk-Administrator shall
execute a receipt in duplicate. The Clerk-Administrator shall deliver the original receipt to
the person who paid the fee, retaining the duplicate. The Clerk-Administrator shall give an
appropriate tag to the owner. The tags shall be metallic and shall be of a different size and
design each license period.
f. Affixing Tags: The owner shall cause said tag to be affixed by a permanent metal
fastener to the collar of the dog so licensed in such manner that the tag may be easily seen.
The owner shall see that the tag is constantly worn by said dog.
g. Duplicate Tags: In case any dog tag is lost, a duplicate may be issued by the
Clerk-Administrator upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of a license fee for the
current year. A charge of two dollars ($2.00) shall be made for each duplicate tag.
h. Change of Address: An owner who has obtained a dog license shall notify the
Clerk-Administrator of owner's address changes within the corporate limits of the City
during the life of the dog and within ten (10) days of any address change.
i. Refunds: No dog tag shall be transferred and no refunds shall be made on any license fee
because of leaving the Municipality or death of the dog before the expiration of the licensing
period.
j. Offense Involving Tags: It shall be unlawful to counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit the
tags provided for in subdivision 3f hereof or for any person other than the owner to take
from any dog a tag legally placed upon it by its owner.
701.03 701.03
Subd. 4. Barking Dogs: No person shall keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks or cries.
Subd. 5. Damage to Property: No dog owner shall permit a dog to damage any lawn, garden or
other property.
Subd. 6. Vicious Dogs; Rabies Bites:
a. Whenever the Community Service Officer determines that any dog has bitten any person,
such dog may be deemed to be vicious for the purpose of this Chapter. Such animal shall be
impounded for a period of ten (10) days or more at the expense of the owner of said animal.
Except for the time limit, disposition or redemption shall be in accordance with the
Page 8 City of Mounds View
provisions of this Chapter1. The quarantine required by this subdivision shall not be
necessary and the requirements may be waived whenever the owner of such dog,
immediately upon receipt of notice that a dog in the owner's control or possession has bitten
a person, presents to the Community Service Officer or a police officer a certificate of a
licensed veterinarian indicating that the dog has been vaccinated for rabies on a date not less
than twenty four (24) months prior to the date of such notice.
b. No person shall own or harbor a fierce or vicious dog or a dog that has been bitten by any
animal known to have been afflicted with rabies. Any person who shall have in that person's
possession a dog which has been bitten by an animal known to have been afflicted with the
rabies shall, upon demand of the proper health official or any police officer of the
Municipality, produce and surrender said dog to said officer to be held for observation
and/or treatment. With the approval of the Health Officer, any such dog may be surrendered
to a registered veterinarian or to any approved nonprofit corporation organized for the
purpose of sheltering dogs.
Subd. 7. Impoundment and Redemption Procedures:
a. Notice to Clerk-Administrator; Records: Upon taking up and impounding of any dog, as
provided, the operator of the Pound shall immediately notify the Clerk-Administrator of
such action, and the Clerk-Administrator shall keep a record at the Municipal office of all
dogs so impounded.
b. Redemption: Any dog may be redeemed from the Pound by the owner within seventy
two (72) hours by the payment to the Clerk-Administrator or Pound the license fee for the
current year as provided for in subdivision 3a of this Section, together with an impounding
fee according to the following schedule:
701.03 701.03 (Rev. 4/98)
(1) First pickup during any twelve (12) consecutive months ............................ $25.00
(2) Second pickup during any twelve (12) consecutive months .......................... 50.00
(3) Third and all subsequent pickups during any twelve (12)
consecutive months ........................................................................................................... 75.00
(4) In addition, the current daily fee shall be charged for board for each day or part
thereof during the time the dog is impounded. The fees may be paid on authorization of the
Council to its agent, pursuant to an annual contract between the City and the designated
Pound beginning January 1 of each year providing for the impounding of dogs. All monies
collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be submitted by the Pound to the City on a
monthly basis.
1 See Subdivision 701.03(7) of this Chapter.
Page 9 City of Mounds View
c. Release: Upon purchase or presentation of a current license tag and a receipt for dog
license for the current year and for the fees provided for in subdivision 6b hereof, the Pound
shall release to any owner the dog claimed by that person upon adequate proof of
ownership.
d. Disposition of Unclaimed Dogs: Any dog which is not claimed or redeemed as provided
in subdivision 6c above within five (5) days after impounding, may be sold at a fair and
reasonable price to anyone desiring to purchase the dog if not requested by a licensed
educational or scientific institution under Minnesota Statutes, section 35.71. All sums
received above the costs and license fee shall be held by the Clerk-Administrator for the
benefit of the owner and, if not claimed in one (1) year, such funds shall be placed in the
General Fund of the Municipality. Any dog which is not claimed by the owner or sold shall
be painlessly killed and disposed of by the Pound. (Ord. 613, 4-13-98)
Subd. 8. Summary Destruction of Dogs: Whenever the Community Service Officer or any police
officer has reasonable cause to believe that a particular dog presents a clear and immediate
danger to the residents of the City because it is infected with rabies or because of a clearly
demonstrated vicious nature, any Mounds View police officer, after making a reasonable
attempt to impound such dog, may summarily destroy said dog.
Subd. 9. Seeing Eye Dogs: Whenever a blind person accompanied by a "seeing eye dog" or guide
dog presents themselves for accommodation or service on any public transit vehicle or to a
restaurant, store or other place of business open to the public, it shall be unlawful for the
owner, manager, operator or any employee of such vehicle or place of business to refuse
admission to the dog or service to the blind person.
Subd. 10. Guard Dogs:
701.03 701.03
a. Businesses located within the City and maintaining a guard dog for security purposes
shall post notice at the entrance to the premises of the presence of said dog.
b. Businesses maintaining a guard dog shall file with the City a release authorizing the
Police or Fire Department to shoot said dog in an emergency situation, if necessary, in order
to allow a police officer or firefighter to gain admittance to the premises in the performance
of the officer's duties.
Subd. 11. Confinement of Dogs; Dogs in Heat:
a. Every dog shall be restrained off the premises of its owner by means of a leash not to
exceed six feet (6') in length and every dog in heat shall be confined in a building during
such entire period and until such dog shall not attract other dogs on account thereof. All
dogs shall be confined on the premises of their owners by leash or by adequate fencing.
b. The owner of any dog shall not permit said dog to be on any public beach, school
playground, public playground or public park unless such dog is leashed and under the
Page 10 City of Mounds View
control of said owner or an agent 1.
c. Any police officer or Community Service Officer of the Municipality shall take up and
impound any dog found in violation of this subdivision and release it only upon the payment
of fees as provided for in this Chapter.
Subd. 12. Muzzling: Whenever the prevalence of hydrophobia or rabies renders such action
necessary, to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the Mayor shall issue a
proclamation ordering every person owning or keeping a dog to confine it securely on that
person's premises unless it is muzzled so that it cannot bite. No person shall violate such
proclamation, and any unmuzzled dog running at large during the time fixed in the
proclamation shall, if possible, be picked up and impounded or, if necessary, killed by the
police officers without notice to the owner of said dog pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
section 35.69.
Subd. 13. Clean Up: Any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog within the City shall clean up
all feces of the dog and dispose of such feces in a sanitary manner.
Subd. 14. Interference with Officers: It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized person to break
open the Pound or to attempt to do so or to take or let out any dogs therefrom or to take from
any police officer or Community Service Officer any dog taken up by an officer in
compliance with this Chapter or in any manner to interfere with or hinder such officer or
Community Service Officer in the discharge of the officer's duties under this Chapter.
701.04: DOGS:
Subd. 1. Dog at large prohibited. A dog owner violates this ordinance if the dog is at large.
Subd. 2. Howling and barking. A dog owner violates this ordinance if the dog which, by
frequent and habitual howling, yelping, barking or otherwise, causes annoyance
or disturbance to two or more persons; provided that the provisions of this section
shall not apply to duly authorized hospitals or clinics conducted for the treatment of
small animals.
Subd. 3. Clean up. Any owner or person having the custody or control of any dog shall:
(a) Not permit the dog to be on public property or the property of another without
having in their immediate possession a device for the collection and removal
of feces to a proper receptacle.
(b) Remove feces left by a dog to a proper receptacle located on the owner’s or
custodian’s property, except that droppings in a park may be placed in an
outside park trash container.
1 See also subdivision 905.15(1) of this Code.
Page 11 City of Mounds View
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a blind person with a guide
dog or to a person with dogs engaged in search or rescue activities.
Subd. 4. Damage to property. No dog owner shall permit a dog to damage any lawn, garden or
other property.
Subd. 5. Licensing and tags.
(a) License required; fee established: No dog owner shall keep any dog over six
(6) months of age within the Municipality unless a license has been issued by
the Clerk-Administrator for a fee established by City Council resolution.
License shall be renewed biennially. The fee for licenses obtained for a
period of one (1) year or less shall be one-half (1/2) of the above fees.
(b) Rabies inoculation certificate: A certification from a veterinarian shall
accompany an application indicating the following:
(1) That the dog has been inoculated for rabies within two (2) years from
the date of application.
(1)(2) That the dog has been spayed or neutered, when a license is being
sought for a spayed female or neutered male.
(c) Expiration: All licenses issued under this Chapter shall expire on September
30 of the year of their expiration.
(d) Payment of fee: It shall be the duty of each dog owner to pay the biennial
license fee imposed to the Clerk-Administrator before September 1 in the year
which the license is to be renewed upon acquiring ownership or possession of
any unlicensed dog or upon establishing residence in Mounds View. The
Clerk-Administrator shall cause a notice of the necessity of paying such
license fee to be printed in the City Newsletter one (1) time before August 15
of the year in which licenses expire.
(e) Receipts and tags: Upon payment of the license fee, the Clerk-Administrator
shall execute a receipt in duplicate. The Clerk-Administrator shall deliver the
original receipt to the person who paid the fee, retaining the duplicate. The
Clerk-Administrator shall give an appropriate tag to the owner. The tag shall
be metallic and shall be of a different size and design each license period.
(f) Affixing tags: The owner shall cause the tag to be affixed by a permanent
metal fastener to the collar of the dog in such manner that the tag may be
easily seen. The owner shall ensure the dog wears the tag at all times.
Page 12 City of Mounds View
(g) Duplicate tags: If a dog tag is lost, a duplicate may be issued by the Clerk-
Administrator upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the license
fee for the current year. A charge of two dollars ($2.00) shall be paid for each
duplicate tag.
(h) Change of address: An dog owner shall notify the Clerk-Administrator of any
change of address inside the city within ten (10) days.
(i) Refunds: No dog tag shall be transferred to another dog or dog owner and no
refund shall be made on any license fee.
(j) Offense involving tags: It shall be unlawful to counterfeit or attempt to
counterfeit the tags provided for herein or for any person other than the
owner to remove from any dog a tag required by this ordinance.
Subd. 6. Rabies bites:
(a) Whenever a dog has bitten a human or a domestic or farm animal, the dog
shall be impounded or confined for a period of ten (10) days or more at the
expense of the owner of the dog. Except for the time limit, disposition or
redemption shall be in accordance with provisions of this Chapter. The
impoundment or confinement may be waived whenever the dog owner
presents to the Community Service Officer or a police officer a certificate of a
licensed veterinarian indicating that the dog has been vaccinated for rabies on
a date not less than twenty-four (24) months prior to the date of the bite.
(b) A dog owner will not keep a dog that has been bitten by any animal known to
have been afflicted with rabies. A dog owner who has a dog which has been
bitten by an animal known to have been afflicted with rabies shall, upon
demand of the Community Service Officer or any police officer of the city,
surrender the dog to the officer for observation and/or treatment. With the
approval of the officer, the dog may be surrendered to a registered
veterinarian or to any approved nonprofit corporation organized for the
purpose of sheltering dogs.
Subd. 7. Impoundment and redemption:
(a) Fees: the dog owner may redeem a dog impounded after the term of
impoundment ends by paying an impoundment fee, boarding charge, and
veterinary service charge. Fees not set by the pound shall be determined by
the City Council per resolution.
(b) Upon purchase or presentation of a current license tag and a receipt for the
fees required above, the pound shall release the dog to its owner upon
adequate proof of ownership.
Page 13 City of Mounds View
(c) Disposition of unredeemed animals: Any dog which is not redeemed within
the time allowed by this Chapter may be sold for not less than the amount
provided above to anyone desiring to purchase the dog, if the dog is not
requested by a licensed education or scientific institution under Minnesota
Statutes 35.71. Any dog which is not redeemed by the owner or sold shall
be disposed of.
(d) Time for redemption: All impounded dogs except those confined for
observation of rabies, shall be redeemed within five (5) days, not including
Sundays or legal holidays, after the dog was impounded. Any dog not
redeemed within five (5) days may be sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed
of.
(e) Guard dogs:
1. A business that has a guard dog for security purposes shall post a
conspicuous notice at the entrance of the premises of the presence
regarding said dog.
2. A business that has a guard dog shall file with the City a release
authorizing the Police or Fire Department to shoot the dog in an
emergency situation, if necessary, in order to allow a police officer or
firefighter to gain admittance to the premises in the performance of
his/her duties.
Subd. 15. Kennels:
a. Conformance with Provisions:
(1) Residential: Any premises where more than two (2) dogs but not more than four
(4) dogs over six (6) months of age are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale 1.
(2) Commercial: Any premises where more than four (4) dogs over six (6) months
of age are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
Subd. 8. Kennels:
(a) Licensing requirements: All dog kennels must first obtain a special use
permit as required in Title 1100 of this Code. The zoning classifications as
required under Chapter 1103 and Section 1104.02 of this Code must be
conformed with. Regardless of any provision in Title 1100 of this Code, the
owner of a proposed dog kennel shall present a petition to the Council
signed by more than fifty percent (50%) of all registered landowners or
1 See also subdivision 701.03(1) of this Code.
Page 14 City of Mounds View
those occupying land within five hundred feet (500’) of the proposed kennel
who agree to the establishment of the kennel. Upon the receipt of the
petition the council will then set a hearing for a special use permit as
provided for in Title 1100 of this
Code. The petition shall contain, among other items of information, how
many dogs the petitioner intends to keep on the premises.
(b) License fee: The annual license fee for dog kennels shall be established by
resolution of the City Council. The license fees are due September 1 of
each year.
b. Licensing Requirements: All dog kennels, residential or commercial, as defined in
subdivision 1 of this Section, must be established by a special use permit as required in Title
1100 of this Code. The zoning classifications as required under Chapter 1103 and Section
1104.02 of this Code must be conformed with. Notwithstanding any provision to the
contrary in Title 1100 of this Code, the owner of a proposed dog kennel shall present a
petition to the Council signed by over fifty percent (50%) of all registered landowners or
those occupying land within five hundred feet (500') of the property to be affected, upon the
receipt of which the Council will then set the hearing for the special use permit as provided
for in Title 1100 of this Code. The petition shall contain, among other items of information,
how many dogs the petitioner intends to keep on the premises.
c. License Fee: The annual license fee for dog kennels shall be established by resolution of
the City Council. Said license fees are due September 1 of each year.
d. Cleanliness and Order; Nuisance Declared: Kennels and premises used therefor shall be
kept in a clean, quiet, orderly and sanitary condition so as not to constitute a nuisance as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 561.01. In determining whether a nuisance exists,
consideration shall be given to the kennel's location, location of other residences and general
character of the neighborhood. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89; 1993 Code)
(c) Cleanliness and order; nuisance declared: Kennels and the premises around
the kennel shall be kept in a clean, quiet, orderly and sanitary condition so
as not to constitute a nuisance as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section
561.01. In determining whether a nuisance exists, consideration shall be
given to the kennel’s location, location of other residences, and general
character of the neighborhood.
Subd. 16. Dogs Running at Large: No person shall allow any dog to run at large within the City of
Mounds View. (Ord. 613, 4-13-98)
701.04: DOMESTIC ANIMALS:
Subd. 1. Definitions: When used in this Section, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this subdivision:
Page 15 City of Mounds View
701.04 701.05
a. AT LARGE: Off the premises of the owner.
b. DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Any cattle, horses, mules, sheep, swine or goats.
c. OWNER: Any person, firm or corporation owning, harboring or keeping a domestic
animal.
d. PRIVATE PROPERTY: All premises owned by private individuals, including all
structures located thereon, front yards, side yards and back yards.
Subd. 2. Nuisance Declared: It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance affecting the public
peace, safety and welfare to keep or raise any domestic animal, as defined herein, on private
property within the Municipality. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89)
701.05 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES:
Subd. 1. VICIOUS ANIMALS. No owner shall keep, or allow on his premises, or
allow to run at large any vicious animal.
Upon conviction for violation of this section, the court may in addition to
imposition of sentence, direct the animal control officer to take the animal into
custody and forthwith dispose of it in a humane manner.
Subd. 2. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. No person shall inhumanely, unnecessarily,
cruelly, or wantonly beat, injure, torment, or otherwise abuse an animal or cause
or permit an animal fight.
Subd. 3. LIABILITY FOR PETS. No owner who is exercising due care by adequately
restraining or confining an animal, shall be held liable under this ordinance for
any harm the animal causes to any other animal if harmed animal is at large and
the harmed animal has entered the area or territory of the animal being legally
restrained or confined.
701.05: RAISING OF ANIMALS:
Subd. 1. Definitions: As used in this Section, the following words and terms shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this subdivision:
a. ANIMAL: Any mammal of the rodent family, including but not necessarily limited to
rabbits, hares and hamsters, and any fowl, including but not necessarily limited to chickens,
pigeons, ducks or geese.
b. KEEPING: Providing food, water and shelter for any animal defined herein.
c. PRIVATE PROPERTY: All premises owned by private individuals, including all
Page 16 City of Mounds View
structures located thereon, front yards, side yards and back yards.
d. RAISING: The maintaining and breeding as a hobby or as a commercial enterprise any
animal defined herein. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89)
701.06: RAISING / KEEPING DOMESTIC OR FARM ANIMALS:
Subd. 1. Definitions: As used in this Section, the following words and terms shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this subdivision:
a. KEEPING: Providing food, water, and shelter for domestic or farm animals.
b. RAISING: The maintaining and breeding as a hobby or as a commercial
enterprise any domestic or farm animal.
Subd. 2. Restrictions: It shall be lawful to keep or raise not more than two (2) animals, as herein
defined, on the private property of the owner of said animals, except where such animals
shall constitute a public nuisance.
Subd. 3. Investigation of Complaints: It shall be the duty of the Police Department to investigate
all complaints submitted to the Council, and if, after investigation, there appears to be a
violation of this Chapter, the investigating officer shall sign a complaint. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89)
Subd. 2. Nuisance Declared: It is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance affecting
the public peace, safety, and welfare for an owner within the city to keep or raise any
farm animal unless the animal is currently being kept or raised on the date of
the enactment of the ordinance.
Subd. 3. Restrictions: It is unlawful for a dog owner to keep or raise more than two (2) dogs
except as allowed under 701.04 (h) “Kennels.” It is unlawful to keep or raise a domestic
or farm animal if it creates a public nuisance and adversely affects the public health
and welfare.
Subd. 4. Investigation of Complaints: It shall be the duty of the Community Service Officer and
the Police Department to investigate all complaints submitted to the Council regarding
domestic or farm animals. After investigation, if there appears to be a violation of
this Chapter, the investigating officer shall issue a citation.
701.06 701.06
701.06: WILD ANIMALS:
Subd. 1. Definitions: As used in this Section, the following words and terms shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this subdivision:
a. AT LARGE: Off the premises of the owner.
b. OWNER: Any person, inn or corporation owning, harboring or keeping a wild animal.
Page 17 City of Mounds View
c. WILD ANIMAL: Any animal or reptile which, in its uncaptured wild or undomesticated
state, has the physical capacity to be dangerous to the safety and welfare of any person.
Subd. 2. Restrictions: No owner shall have in their possession more than one wild animal, as
herein defined, at any one time.
Subd. 3. Confinement of Wild Animals:
a. No wild animal shall be allowed by its owner to run at large in the Municipality, whether
or not the wild animal is attended by a human being and shall be confined to a cage or
building located on the owner's premises.
b. Any wild animal found running at large may be immediately destroyed, without notice to
the owner, by or under the direction of the Community Service Officer or a police officer if
said wild animal cannot be taken up and impounded after reasonable effort or without
serious risk to persons attempting to impound it. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89)
701.07: NON-DOMESTIC / WILD ANIMALS:
Subd. 1. Restrictions: No person shall have in their possession any non-domestic or wild animal.
(a) Any non-domestic or wild animal found at large may be immediately
destroyed, without notice to the owner, by the direction of the Community
Service Officer or a police officer if the wild animal cannot be captured and
impounded after reasonable effort or without serious risk to those attempting
to impound it or others.
Subd. 4. Trapping: No person shall place or set any trap or device designed to kill or capture wild
animals upon privately owned or public lands within the City in violation of any law,
ordinance or rule pertaining to trespassing. No person shall engage in trapping on publicly
owned lands within the City without possessing a valid permit.
a. A permit may be issued by the City Council to any applicant who can satisfactorily
demonstrate the following:
(1) Applicant possesses a valid State trapper's license; or
(2) Applicant is under the age of sixteen (16) years and has completed a course in
trapper education offered by or under the sponsorship of the Department of Natural
Resources; or
(3) Applicant has at least three (3) years of previous trapping experience and has
not, within the preceding three (3) years, been convicted of a violation of any trapping law,
ordinance or rule.
701.06 701.07
Page 18 City of Mounds View
b. No person shall place or set any trap with a jaw spread greater than six inches (6") upon
privately or publicly owned lands within the City. (1988 Code §52.09)
Subd. 2. Trapping: It is unlawful to place or set any trap or device designed to kill or capture a wild
animal while trespassing on another person’s land within the city. No person shall engage
in trapping on publicly owned lands within the City without possessing a valid permit.
a. A permit may be issued by the City Council to any applicant who
can satisfactorily demonstrate the following:
(1) Applicant possesses a valid State trapper's license; or
(2) Applicant is under the age of sixteen (16) years and has completed
a course in trapper education approved by the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources; or
(3) Applicant has at least three (3) years of previous trapping experience and
has not, within the preceding three (3) years, been convicted of
a violation of any trapping law, ordinance, or rule.
b. No person shall place or set any trap with a jaw spread greater than six inches
(6") within the City.
701.07 8: VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS: Any person violating any provision of
this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 460, 4-24-89)
Page 19 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.01
CHAPTER 702
OFFENSES 1
SECTION:
702.01: Misdemeanors
702.02: Administrative Offenses
702.01: MISDEMEANORS: The acts, types and causes of behavior enumerated in this
Section constitute misdemeanors and are punishable as provided in Section 104.01 of this Code.
The following provisions and sections of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 609, the Criminal Code, as
amended, are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Code as if fully set forth herein.
Subd. 1. General Principles:
a. 609.02 Definitions. Subdivisions 3, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
b. 609.033 Increased Maximum Penalty for Misdemeanors.
c. 609.034 Increased Maximum Penalty for Ordinance Violations.
d. 609.05 Liability for Crimes of Another.
e. 609.06 Authorized Use of Force.
f. 609.085 Sending Written Communication.
Subd. 2. Anticipatory Crimes:
a. 609.17 Attempts.
b. 609.175 Conspiracy.
Subd. 3. Crimes Against the Person:
a. 609.224 Assault - 5th Degree.
1 For nuisance provisions regarding similar subject matter, see Chapter 604 of this Code.
Page 20 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.01
b. 609.26 Depriving Another of Custodial or Parental Rights.
Subd. 4. Crimes of Compulsion:
a. 609.28 Interfering with Religious Observance.
Subd. 5. Sex Crimes:
a. 609.321 Prostitution.
b. 609.324 Other Prohibited Acts.
c. 609.34 Fornication.
d. Lewd Conduct: Wilfully and lewdly exposing of a person or the private parts thereof or
procuring another to so expose themselves and any open and gross lewdness or lascivious
behavior or any act of public indecency is unlawful.
Subd. 6. Crimes Against the Family:
a. 609.37 Definition.
b. 609.375 Non-Support of Spouse or Child.
Subd. 7. Crimes Against Government:
a. 609.40 Flags.
Subd. 8. Crimes Affecting Public Officer or Employee:
a. 609.435 Officer Not Filing Security.
b. 609.45 Public Officer; Unauthorized Compensation.
c. 609.475 Impersonating Officer.
Subd. 9. Crimes Against the Administration of Justice:
a. 609.485 Escape from Custody.
b. Flight to Avoid Arrest:
Page 21 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.01
(1) Any person who has committed a misdemeanor in the presence of a law
enforcement officer or who is suspected of committing a felony and who shall avoid arrest
or who shall attempt to avoid arrest by flight shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) Any person who has committed a misdemeanor in the presence of a law
enforcement officer or who is suspected of committing a felony and who fails to cooperate
with any law enforcement officer including the giving of false information, particularly as to
that person's name, address, age or other pertinent information shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
c. 609.50 Obstructing Legal Process, Arrest or Firefighting.
d. 609.505 Falsely Reporting Crime.
e. 609.51 Simulating Legal Process.
f. 609.515 Misconduct of Judicial or Hearing Officer.
Subd. 10. Theft and Related Crimes:
a. 609.52 Theft.
b. 609.525 Bringing Stolen Goods into State.
c. 609.53 Receiving Stolen Property.
d. 609.535 Issuance of Dishonored Checks.
e. 609.541 Protection of Library Property.
f. 609.545 Misusing Credit Card to Secure Services.
Subd. 11. Damage or Trespass to Property:
a. 609.556 Definition.
b. 609.576 Negligent Fires; Dangerous Smoking.
c. 609.595 Damage to Property.
d. 609.605 Trespass.
e. 609.606 Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion.
f. 609.615 Defeating Security on Realty.
Page 22 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.01
Subd. 12. Forgery and Related Crimes:
a. 609.65 False Certification by Notary Public.
Subd. 13. Crimes Against Public Safety and Health:
a. 609.66 Dangerous Weapons.
b. Possession, Aiming or Discharging of Weapons.
(1) Definitions:
(a) AIR GUN: Any air rifle, air gun, BB gun, spring gun or similar device for the
propulsion of shot or other metal pellet by means of compressed air or mechanical
spring action.
(b) SWITCHBLADE: Any knife with a blade which moves into a fixed open
position by mechanical device known as a switchblade knife.
(c) WEAPON: Any gun, pistol, revolver, slingshot, sand club, metal knuckles,
daggers, dirk and knife.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person within the limits of the Municipality to
handle or have in their possession or under their control any weapon, air gun, switchblade
knife or any other dangerous or deadly weapon.
(3) Any such weapon, air gun or switchblade knife duly adjudged by the court to
have been handled or held in possession or under a person's control in violation of
subdivision 13b2 above shall be forfeited or confiscated to the Municipality and shall be so
adjudged.
(4) Any duly authorized peace officer within the Municipality may, within the limits
of said Municipality without a warrant, arrest any person whom such officer may find in any
act of violating subdivision 13b2 above and may detain a person in the Municipal jail or any
other place of legal confinement until a warrant can be procured or complaint made for the
trial of such person as required by law.
(5) The prohibition of this subdivision shall not apply to duly authorized police
officers of the Municipality when on duty nor to any officer of any court whose duty shall
be to serve warrants or to make arrests nor to persons whose business or occupation may
require the carrying of weapons for protection and who shall have obtained from the
Council a permit to handle or have in their possession or control any described weapon, air
gun or switchblade knife.
Page 23 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.01
(6) It is not the intent of this subdivision to prohibit the possession of any weapon or
air gun that is properly incased and is being stored or transported for hunting purposes.
c. 609.665 Spring Guns.
d. 609.675 Exposure of Unused Refrigerator or Container to Children.
e. 609.68 Unlawful Deposit of Garbage, Litter or Like.
f. 609.685 Sale of Tobacco to Children.
g. 609.686 False Fire Alarms; Tampering with or Injuring a Fire Alarm System 1.
h. Narcotics:
(1) Definitions: Unless the language or context clearly indicates that a different
meaning is intended, the following words, terms and phrases, for the purposes of this
subdivision 13h, shall be given the meanings subjoined to them:
(a) FEDERAL NARCOTICS LAWS: The laws of the United States relating to
opium, coca leaves and other narcotic drugs.
(b) NARCOTIC DRUGS: Coca leaves, opium, cannabis (marijuana and hashish),
isonipecaine, amidone, isoamidone, ketobemidone, as more fully defined in
Minnesota Statutes, section 152.01, and shall include all depressants, stimulants,
hallucinogens, including LSD, by whatever trade name they are known as and every
other substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from them, any
other drugs to which the Federal Narcotics Law may now apply and any other drug
which is hereafter included under the Federal Narcotic Law and found by the State
Board of Health, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, to have an
addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability similar to morphine or cocaine,
from the effective date of determination of such finding of said State Board of
Health.
(c) NARCOTIC DRUG PARAPHERNALIA: Shall include hypodermic syringe or
needle or any other instrument or implement adopted for the use of narcotic drugs or
any stem, bowl, lamp, pipe, cigarette paper or other narcotic smoking paraphernalia
or accessories used for the smoking or inhalation of narcotics as defined herein.
1 See Also Chapter 602 and Section 1002.02, amendment 11.301 of this Code.
Page 24 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.01
(d) OFFICIAL WRITTEN ORDER: An order written on a form provided for that
purpose of the United States Commissioner of Narcotics under any laws of the
United States making provision therefor if such order forms are authorized and
required by Federal law and, if no such order form is provided, then on an official
form provided for that purpose by the Department of Health of the State.
(e) PERSONS: Includes any corporation, association, copartnership or any one or
more individuals.
(f) PHYSICIAN, DENTIST, VETERINARIAN, MANUFACTURER,
WHOLESALE, APOTHECARY, HOSPITAL and LABORATORY: Herewith
defined pursuant to the terms of the Minnesota Statutes, section 152.01, subdivisions
3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
(2) Declaration of Public Nuisance: It is hereby declared to be public nuisance
affecting the public peace, safety and general welfare of any person, except those persons,
institutions or laboratories as defined in subdivision 13h(l)(f) above, to have in their
possession or allow on their premises any narcotic drug.
(3) Unlawful Acts: It shall be unlawful for any person, except those persons,
institutions, or laboratories as defined in subdivision 13h(l)(f) above, to have in their
possession or to allow on their premises persons who have possession of narcotic drugs or to
allow on their premises any narcotic drug. It shall be unlawful for any person to use or allow
to be used or allow on their premises narcotic drug paraphernalia with narcotics drugs. A
person's premises, for the purposes of this subdivision 13h, shall be that real estate owned,
rented or used by any person.
(4) Kept in Original Container: A person to whom or for whose use any narcotic
drug has been prescribed, sold or dispensed by a physician, dentist, apothecary or other
person authorized under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 152.10, and the owner
of any animal for which any such drug has been prescribed, sold or dispensed by a
veterinarian, may lawfully possess it only in the container in which it was delivered to them
by the person selling or dispensing the same.
(5) Persons Exempted: The provisions of this subdivision 13h restricting possession
and allowing the use of narcotic drugs on a person's premises shall not apply to common
carriers or to warehousemen while engaged in lawfully transporting or storing such narcotic
drugs or to any employee of the same acting within the scope of the employee's employment
or to public officers or their employees in the performance of their official duties requiring
possession or storage on their premises of narcotic drugs or to temporary incidental
possession or by persons whose possession is for the purpose of aiding public officers in
performing their official duties.
Page 25 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.01
(6) Narcotic Drugs Shall be Forfeited in Certain Cases: All narcotic drugs, the
lawful possession of which is not established or the title to which cannot be ascertained,
which have come into the custody of a peace officer, shall be forfeited and disposed of
pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 152.01 et seq.
i. Fireworks 1:
(1) Sale Prohibited: No person shall, within the Municipality, sell, keep for sale,
dispense or distribute, with or without consideration or to use in a fireworks, Chinese
crackers, rockets, torpedoes or other explosive contrivances; provided, however, that this
subdivision 131 shall not apply to the keeping and storage for shipment outside the
Municipality of any such merchandise if a special permit is granted therefor by the Council.
(2) Confiscation: It is the duty of the police force to seize any and all fireworks,
Chinese crackers, rockets, torpedoes or other explosive contrivances in the possession or
used by any person within the Municipality contrary to the provisions of this subdivision
13i, and all such fireworks, Chinese crackers, rockets, torpedoes or other explosive
contrivances seized as aforesaid shall be destroyed under the direction and by the authority
of the Council.
Subd. 14. Public Misconduct or Nuisance:
a. 609.705 Unlawful Assembly.
b. 609.715 Presence at Unlawful Assembly.
c. 609.72 Disorderly Conduct. Voluntarily entering the water of any lake or public
swimming pool within the limits of the Municipality between the hours of ten o'clock
(10:00) P.M. and five o'clock (5:00) A.M. or entering such water without being garbed in a
bathing suit sufficient to cover their person and equal to the standards generally adopted and
accepted by the public is hereby declared to be disorderly conduct.
d. 609.725 Vagrancy.
e. 609.735 Concealing Identity.
f. 609.74 Public Nuisance2.
g. 609.746 Interference with Privacy.
Subd. 15. Gambling:
1 See Also subdivision 604.03(3)g and Sections 905.11 and 1103.16 of this Code.
2 See also Section 604.02 of this Code.
Page 26 City of Mounds View
702.01 702.02
a. 609.75 Gambling; Definitions.
b. 609.755 Acts of or Relating to Gambling.
Subd. 16. Crimes Against Reputation:
a. 609.77 False Information to News Media.
Subd. 17. Crimes Relating to Communications:
a. 609.775 Divulging Telephone or Telegraph Message; Nondelivery.
b. 609.78 Emergency Telephone Calls and Communications.
c. 609.785 Fraudulent Long Distance Telephone Calls.
d. 609.79 Obscene or Harassing Telephone Calls.
e. 609.795 Letter, Telegram, or Package; Opening; Harassment.
f. 609.80 Interfering with Cable Communications Systems.
Subd. 18. Crimes Relating to Business:
a. 609.805 Ticket Scalping.
b. 609.81 Misconduct of Pawnbrokers.
c. 609.815 Misconduct of Junk or Secondhand Dealer.
d. 609.82 Fraud in Obtaining Credit. (1988 Code §300.01)
702.02: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES 1:
Subd. 1. Definition of Administrative Offense: An administrative offense is a violation of a
section, subdivision, paragraph or provision of this Code when one performs an act
prohibited, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited and is subject to the penalty
set forth in Section 104.01 of this Code, and the schedule set forth hereafter. (1988 Code
§400.01)
Subd. 2. Misdemeanors and Administrative Offenses: Offenses that are declared misdemeanors
by this Code may be charged as administrative offenses, at the election of the City, when
notice of violation is issued pursuant to subdivision 3 of this Section and there is a scheduled
penalty established herein. (1988 Code §400.09)
1 See also subdivisions 104.01(3) and (6) of this Code.
Page 27 City of Mounds View
702.02 702.02
Subd. 3. Notice of Violation: Any member of the City Police Department and/or any other person
employed by the City with authority to enforce this Code1 shall, upon determining that there
has been a violation, notify the violator or person responsible for the violation or, in the case
of a vehicular violation, by attaching to said vehicle notice of the violation, said notice
setting forth the nature, date, time of the violation, the name of the official issuing the notice
and the amount of the scheduled initial penalty and, where applicable, any charges relating
thereto.
Subd. 4. Scheduled Penalties; Penalties Imposed: Penalties shall be imposed for a violation of the
scheduled administrative offenses according to a schedule established by resolution of the
City Council. (1988 Code §400.09)
Subd. 5. Payment of Fine; Late Charges:
a. Once such notice is given, the person responsible for the violation shall, within seven (7)
days of the time of issuance of the notice, pay full satisfaction of the stated violation
schedule to the City Finance Director/Treasurer.
b. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall be admission of the
violation.
c. A late charge shall be imposed for each seven (7) days the penalty remains unpaid after
the first seven (7) day period. (1988 Code §400.02)
Subd. 6. Failure to Pay: If a violator fails to pay the penalty imposed, the Clerk-Administrator
may order the issuance of an ordinance complaint as authorized by law 2, and the violation
shall be processed as a crime by the Ramsey County Municipal Court as provided for in
Minnesota Statutes, section 488A.18, subdivision 7(2). (1988 Code §400.05)
Subd. 7. Hearing:
a. Request for Hearing: Any person aggrieved by this Section may request, within seven (7)
days of the time of issuance of the notice, to be heard by the hearing officer who shall hear
and determine the grievance. (1988 Code §400.04)
1 See subdivision 104.01(6) of this Code for enumeration of officials and specific citations each is authorized to
issue.
2 M.S.A. §412.861.
Page 28 City of Mounds View
702.02 702.02
b. Hearing Officer: The Clerk-Administrator shall be the hearing officer, and the Clerk-
Administrator or a designee is authorized to hear or determine a case or controversy relative
to this Section. The hearing officer is not a Judicial officer and is a public officer as defined
by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.415 and subject to Minnesota Statutes relating to public
officers. (1988 Code §400.03)
c. Determination of Case: The hearing officer shall have the authority to dismiss the
violation for cause, reduce or waive the penalty upon such terms and conditions as can be
agreed upon by the parties; however, reasons for such dispositions shall be stated, in writing,
by said hearing officer. If the violation is sustained by the hearing officer, the violator shall
pay satisfaction of the penalty or shall sign an agreement to pay upon such terms and
conditions as set forth by the hearing officer. (1988 Code §400.04)
Subd. 8. Administration:
a. Enforcement of Provisions: In addition to all other duties set forth in the Code and the
Home Rule Charter 1, the Clerk-Administrator may delegate and supervise the work of any
City employees implementing and administering this Chapter. The Clerk-Administrator
shall make and have custody of all records necessary and shall keep proper accounts of the
proceeds received. (1988 Code §400.07)
b. Disposition of Penalties: All penalties collected shall be paid over to the City Finance
Director/Treasurer. The Clerk-Administrator may receive negotiable instruments in
payment of penalties as conditional payment and shall not be held accountable therefor.
Receipt shall be issued for cash payments. (1988 Code §400.06)
1 See Charter Section 6.03.
Page 29 City of Mounds View
703.01 703.01
CHAPTER 703
MINORS
SECTION:
703.01: Curfew
703.01: CURFEW:
Subd. 1. Age and Hour Restrictions
a. Minors Under Sixteen (16): It shall be unlawful for any minor under the age of sixteen
(16) years to loiter, idle, wander, stroll or play in or upon the public streets, highways, roads,
alleys, parks, playgrounds, public places and public buildings, places of entertainment and
amusement, vacant lots and other unsupervised places in Mounds View between the hours
of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and five o'clock (5:00) A.M. the following day.
b. Minors Between Sixteen (16) and Seventeen (17): It shall be unlawful for any minor
who is sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age to loiter, idle, wander, stroll or play in or
upon public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds, public places and public
buildings, places of entertainment and amusement, vacant lots and other unsupervised places
in Mounds View between the hours of twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight and five o'clock
(5:00) A.M. the following morning. Provided, however, that the provisions of the Section
do not apply to a minor accompanied by their parent, guardian or other adult person having
the care and custody of the minor, to a minor who is upon an emergency errand or other
legitimate business directed by their parent, guardian or other adult person having the care
and custody of the minor or where the presence of said minor in said place is connected with
and required by some legitimate business, trade, profession or occupation in which said
minor is permitted by law to be engaged. (1988 Code §201.01)
Subd. 2. Duties of Parents and Guardians: It shall be unlawful for the parent, guardian or other
adult person having charge of a minor under the age of eighteen (18) years to permit such
minor to loiter, idle, wander, stroll or play in or upon the public streets, highways, roads,
alleys, parks, playgrounds or other public grounds, places and public buildings, places of
entertainment and amusement, vacant lots and other unsupervised places in Mounds View
during the hours prohibited by this Section; provided, however, that the provisions of this
Page 30 City of Mounds View
703.01 703.01
subdivision do not apply when the minor is accompanied by their parent, guardian or other
adult person having the care and custody of the minor, where the minor is upon an
emergency errand or legitimate business directed by their parent, guardian or other adult
person having the care and custody of the minor or where the presence of said minor in said
place is connected with and required by some legitimate business, trade, profession or
occupation in which said minor is permitted by law to be engaged. (1988 Code §201.02)
Subd. 3. Minors in Amusement Places 1: No person operating or in charge of any place of
amusement, entertainment or refreshment shall permit any minor under the age of eighteen
(18) years to remain in such place during the hours prohibited by this Section; provided,
however, that the provisions of this Section shall not apply when such minor is accompanied
by their parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor.
(1988 Code §201.03)
Subd. 4. Violation of Provisions: Any person violating any provision of this Section shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor. (1988 Code §201.04)
1 See Chapter 506 of this Code for amusement regulations.