HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 10242017
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items:
I. Approval of the October 24, 2017, City Council Meeting Agenda. (action requested.)
II. Proclamations and Recognitions.
III. Consent Agenda.
These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda.
A. Approval of October 10, 2017, City Council meeting minutes. (pp.1-10)
B. Licenses and Permits. (pp.11)
C. Claims. (pp.13-15)
D. Resolution 17-071 a resolution Designating Polling Places for the 2018 State Primary and State
General Election. (pp.17)
IV. Public Hearing.
A. Body Camera Policy. Jon Mangseth, Police Chief presenting. (no action required) (pp.19-45)
V. Reports from Commission and Staff.
VI. General Business of Council.
A. Resolution 17-072 a resolution Revoking the Massage License for Solace and Wellness,
Located at 2500 Hwy 88. Charlie Yunker, Assistant to the City Manager presenting.
(pp.47-53)
B. Ordinance 2017-03 an ordinance Approving the Comcast Cable Television Franchise. Charlie
Yunker, Assistant to the City Manager presenting. (Final reading and Adoption). (pp.55)
C. Resolution 17-073 a resolution Approving Summary Publication of Ordinance 2017-03
Comcast Franchise Agreement. Charlie Yunker, Assistant to the City Manager presenting.
(pp.57-58)
VII. Reports from City Manager and Council members.
VIII. Community Forum
Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda.
Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the
podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five
minutes. Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time,
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
OCTOBER 24, 2017
7:00 p.m.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled
on an upcoming agenda.
IX. Information and Announcements
X. Adjournment.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 2
OCTOBER 10, 2017 3
4
CALL TO ORDER. 5
6
Mayor Faust called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7
8
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 9
10
Mayor Faust invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 11
12
ROLL CALL. 13
14
Present: Mayor Faust; Councilmembers Gray, Jenson, and Stille. 15
Absent: None 16
Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey, City Attorney Jay Lindgren and City Planner Breanne 17
Rothstein. 18
19
CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 20
ITEMS. 21
22
I. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA. 23
24
Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve the City 25
Council Meeting Agenda of October 10, 2017 as presented. 26
27
Motion carried 4-0. 28
29
II. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS - NONE. 30
31
III. CONSENT AGENDA. 32
33
A. Approval of September 26, 2017, City Council Meeting Minutes. 34
B. Licenses and Permits. 35
C. Claims. 36
D. Resolution 17-063; a Resolution Accepting Donations and Grants Received in the 3rd 37
Quarter of 2017. 38
E. Resolution 17-064; a Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public 39
Utility Service Accounts to the 2018 Hennepin County Tax Rolls. 40
F. Resolution 17-065; a Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public 41
Utility Service Accounts to the 2018 Ramsey County Tax Rolls. 42
G. Resolution 17-066; a Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Waste 43
Hauler Accounts to the 2018 Hennepin County Tax Rolls. 44
H. Resolution 17-067; a Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Waste 45
Hauler Accounts to the 2018 Ramsey County Tax Rolls. 46
47
Motion by Councilmember Stille, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve the Consent 48
Agenda items. 49
1
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 2
1
Motion carried 4-0. 2
3
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE. 4
5
V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF. 6
7
A. Resolution 17-068; a Resolution denying a request for a 17.5-foot variance to build a 8
deck 7.5 feet from the property line at 3113 Edward Street. 9
10
City Planner Rothstein reported today the Applicant withdrew their request for a variance. The 11
Council needs not consider the request and a letter will be sent to the Applicant tomorrow 12
confirming withdrawal of the variance request. 13
14
B. Resolution 17-069 a resolution approving the minor subdivision request for the properties 15
located at 3725 Stinson Boulevard and 3701 Stinson Boulevard. 16
17
City Planner Rothstein reviewed the minor subdivision to transfer land from the southern lot to 18
the northern lot for the purposes of future redevelopment of the 2701 Stinson parcel. The lot line 19
adjustment and transfer would add 70 feet to the 3701 Stinson lot and both property owners are 20
amenable through provision of Purchase Agreement. The Applicant/Owner is Apache 21
Redevelopment, LLC – Len Pratt. The existing land use/zoning designation is High Density 22
Residential/Planned Unit Development. The area is zoned Planned Unit Development, which 23
requires a development plan for re-development. There are no specified minimum lot sizes 24
within the district. The request is consistent with the submitted Development Plan for Silver 25
Lake Village. 26
27
City Planner Rothstein reviewed the guidance from City Code and noted the City Council may 28
waive compliance with the platting requirements of this subchapter and approve by adoption of a 29
resolution to that effect based upon findings by the City Council that compliance with the 30
platting requirements would create an unnecessary hardship or expense because of the nature of 31
the subdivision, and failure to require the filing of a plat does not interfere with the purposes of 32
this subchapter and the City Council may consider the number of parcels resulting from the 33
subdivision, the complexity of the legal descriptions, the necessity for dedication of streets or 34
drainage and utility easements, and the probability of future subdivision of the parcels (relating 35
to Section 151 Subdivision Regulations, Section 152.08). 36
37
Ms. Rothstein provided an analysis of the request stating it is for a minor lot adjustment, the 38
request does not change the land use or alter the site layout, the purchase agreement shows both 39
property owners agree to the minor subdivision, and the minor subdivision results in the increase 40
of the size of 3701 Stinson lot, making it more likely to redevelop. 41
42
City Planner Rothstein stated that Staff has reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and parcel 43
transfer requested, and recommends approval of the application, subject on the following 44
conditions: 45
46
2
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 3
Satisfactory submittal of evidence to provide proof of clear title (and resolution of any 1
outstanding title issues) 2
3
City Attorney review and resolution of any other outstanding legal issues associated with 4
recording of the minor subdivision and parcel transfer. 5
6
Councilmember Stille asked if the resulting Unofficial lot conforms with all parking and zoning 7
conditions and Ms. Rothstein stated the property to be conveyed is currently vacant with no 8
parking lot or building on the lot. The resulting parcel is .8 acres. 9
10
Councilmember Jenson asked what the growth in acreage is. Ms. Rothstein stated there is a 50% 11
increase in the size of the lot going from half an acre to .8 acres. 12
13
The Applicant was present but did not wish to address the Council. 14
15
Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve Resolution 16
17-069; a Resolution Approving the Minor Subdivision Request for the Properties Located at 17
3725 Stinson Boulevard and 3701 Stinson Boulevard subject to the two conditions. 18
19
Motion carried 4-0. 20
21
VI. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL. 22
23
A. Resolution 17-070; a Resolution denying The Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PUD 24
Preliminary Development Plan/PUD Rezoning and Preliminary Plan related to The 25
Village, LLC Project Located at 2401 and 2501 Lowry Avenue. 26
27
Ms. Rothstein reviewed the process to date for the Council and public. The Planning 28
Commission recommendation from their September meeting was reviewed. Revised plans were 29
submitted on October 2, 2017 and both sets of plans are included in the Council packet for 30
review. 31
32
City Manager Casey reviewed a letter he submitted to the Mayor and Councilmembers on 33
October 5, 2017 stating: 34
35
On October 2, 2017, the applicant submitted revised plans and additional information (“Revised 36
Application”). This information revises the plan that was presented to the Planning Commission. 37
All additional information contained in the revised Application has been made part of the public 38
record, has been provided to Council and has been posted on the City’s website. In particular, the 39
Revised Plan requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the portion of the proposed project 40
at 2401 Lowry which is proposed for affordable housing. In addition, the entire site requires a 41
Planned Unit Development (PUD) authorization, which is a form of rezoning. 42
43
The Applicant, by letter dated September 18, requested that the Council consider the Revised 44
Plan at this evening’s meeting. Due to the revisions submitted on October 2, Council may 45
consider the revisions or may choose to ask the Planning Commission to consider the Revised 46
3
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 4
Application. Since the Applicant has requested that Council directly consider the updates 1
contained in the Revised Application, a draft resolution has been prepared for Council 2
consideration. The draft resolution addresses, in particular, the continued request for a 3
Comprehensive Plan amendment and a PUD. Based on Staff review of the Planning Commission 4
actions to date and the Revised Application, Staff concludes that certain of the concerns 5
documented in the staff report with regard to the original application remain in the Revised Plan. 6
Based on consultation with the City Attorney, Staff advises that the Council has significant 7
discretion in determining whether a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a PUD as requested in 8
the Revised Application are appropriate for the health, safety and welfare of St. Anthony. It is 9
Staff’s opinion they are not. Staff has prepared a draft resolution for Council consideration, with 10
recommended findings, to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the PUD. These 11
findings may be modified to reach a different conclusion during Council deliberations. 12
13
City Manager Casey recommended the project site appears to be a good candidate for a 14
Technical Assistance Panel (“TAP”). The TAP process is a service offered by the Urban Land 15
Institute to consider a prospective project and offer alternatives that meet the interests of all 16
interested parties. If Council directs Staff, inquiries could be made as to the availability and 17
timing of a TAP for this project site. 18
19
Mayor Faust noted this is not a public hearing but the developer will be asked to speak, followed 20
by any public comments. Mayor Faust reminded everyone this is a single project application 21
brought by the developer. The affordable housing components do not stand alone. Mayor Faust 22
has a strong desire to see affordable housing in this community and specifically on this site. 23
Council’s duty is to look at the entire PUD and make a reasonable, rational, and well considered 24
decision on whether this proposal matches our community’s vision. The project as a whole will 25
be considered this evening. There has been criticism by the developer of City Staff, including the 26
threat of litigation. Mayor Faust stated the Council has full confidence of City Staff and their role 27
is to strive for a fair and equitable process, remain in a neutral role and not pre-judge an 28
application. Staff can’t design the project for the developer and Staff doesn’t vote. Mayor Faust 29
stated he has full confidence that Staff did this throughout the process. 30
31
Ms. Traci Thomas, Vice President of The Village LLC, noted The Village LLC owns over 15 32
acres in the City of St. Anthony Village. She reviewed the initial vision for the land included in 33
the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas provided a PowerPoint presentation showing their plan. 34
She quoted Mayor’s comments from the 2/14/17 EAW public hearing. The revised proposal 35
includes a reduction to 40 units per acre on the 2501 Lowry Avenue site, dropping the unit count 36
to 97 (the number of homes that were in Lowry Grove) on the 2401 Lowry Avenue site as 37
replacement housing, reduced heights of buildings, additional storm water storage, increased 38
connectivity and access with internal roads and trails, and additional parking. Ms. Thomas stated 39
the changes were made in good faith thinking the Council would have a discussion about the 40
project rather than just saying no after another hurdle presented was met. The 2401 Lowry 41
Avenue site meets the Comprehensive Plan guidance and Alan Arthur, President and CEO of 42
AEON, will later note he is willing to meet the 40 units per acre as well. 43
44
4
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 5
Ms. Thomas stated to deny a proposal due to density is wrong. The City is relying on the 2008 1
Comprehensive Plan as the guiding source. That Plan does not address current factors. There are 2
existing issues that need to be resolved and less density creates an unfeasible development. 3
4
Mr. Jared Ward, Civil Engineer, reviewed the site challenges. He stated there are a number of 5
things to consider for the site such as traffic, grading challenges, storm water treatment 6
restrictions, building and garage entrances, building setbacks, walkability and connectivity of the 7
site, and fire requirements. Mr. Ward stated the revised proposal addresses these concerns. 8
9
Mr. Christopher Pelpovich, BKV Architect, reviewed the overall design of the project and 10
pointed out some of the major elements. He reviewed the buildings and their heights and 11
reviewed the pieces that have changed including Building C, exterior of townhomes, Building A, 12
Buildings B and E, Building D. Mr. Pelpovich stated the current plan shows 712 units with 867 13
enclosed parking stalls and 237 additional surface stalls with 100 being parallel parking along the 14
streets. Mr. Pelpovich reviewed the stages of the project and indicated the entire site would be 15
completed in 2022. 16
17
Mr. Brady Halvorson reviewed the overall concept of the site and landscape plan. There will be 18
sidewalks on both sides of the streets with lighting and boulevard trees. They wanted to make 19
this a comfortable inviting neighborhood that is consistent with the neighboring properties. Good 20
neighborhood and community design principles have been implemented. He reviewed the 21
outside space available to all residents, noting there would be room for 38 additional parking 22
spaces if some of the green space was given up. 23
24
Mr. Pelpovich returned to the podium and reviewed the outside of Building B and the number of 25
units within the building and parking. He also reviewed Building D, which would be the largest 26
building on the site, and the townhomes plan. 27
28
Ms. Mindy Michaels, Sr. Project Manager, provided insight into the design for the senior 29
components included in senior services building and the senior co-op building. She reviewed the 30
services available in the senior services building. 31
32
Ms. Traci Thomas returned to the podium and quoted from the Comprehensive Plan regarding 33
Lowry Grove development. She then reviewed the settlement. 34
35
Mr. Christopher Pelpovich reviewed Building E and stated one of the challenges is the ground 36
water contamination that is occurring. The same applies to Building B. 37
38
Mr. Alan Arthur, President and CEO of AEON, stated he is frustrated and confused with the 39
recommendation from the City Manager to deny the strong and compelling proposal by The 40
Village. He feels they have appropriately responded to most of the comments and concerns with 41
the previous proposal. He is discouraged the 97 homes from the Lowry Grove Mobile Home 42
Park might not be replaced. He does not see how 41.4 units per acre compared to the 43
Comprehensive Plan of 40 units per acre is a deal breaker. If that is the case, AEON would only 44
do 75-80 affordable apartment homes to keep the density at 40 units/acre. He stated he is sad the 45
City would turn down the revised proposal. 46
5
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 6
1
Mr. Jack Cann, Attorney representing the Lowry Grove Resident Association, stated about 60 of 2
the residents at Lowry Grove had homes that couldn’t be moved. Most of those are at the mercy 3
of an extremely hostile apartment rental environment. He asked what the long-term housing 4
solution is on behalf of those residents. Mr. Cann referred to the City’s website “Lowry Grove 5
Redevelopment” and read the principles. Mr. Casey’s recommendation did not include any 6
analysis of affordable housing proposed for the project and the planning principles noted on the 7
website were not addressed. Mr. Cann quoted from City Code and asked why staff did a 180-8
degree pivot when they learned there would be 110 units of deeply affordable housing and invite 9
the previous Lowry Grove residents back into that housing. Mr. Cann the City included in the 10
Comprehensive Plan the plan to redevelop Lowry Grove and get rid of its residents and by 11
requiring a density of 25 units/acre those residents will stay gone. He indicated there are some 12
potential legal consequences that have been conveyed to the City Attorney. 13
14
Mr. Bill Skolnick, Legal Counsel for Brad Hoyt and The Village LLC, stated he knows what the 15
City and surrounding areas are like because he lived in the area. Mr. Hoyt has given him two 16
missions this evening. Mr. Skolnick read a letter Mr. Hoyt had written in full. The second 17
mission was to give a perspective. He feels Mayor Faust’s confidence in Mr. Casey’s opinion is 18
misplaced in this situation as his opinion directly contradicts the facts and the findings. Mr. 19
Skolnick stated facts that were stated or written from the City, noting the City Attorney told one 20
of The Village staff this morning that Council would deny the proposal before even hearing the 21
evidence. He stated that is not the way it is supposed to work. Mr. Skolnick stated the City 22
Attorney had a conversation with Mr. Mergens this morning. Mr. Skolnick asked what happened 23
between Mr. Casey saying the more density the better as long as the City’s infrastructure can 24
handle it and now. Mr. Skolnick stated he hopes Council will consider the revised proposal and 25
the importance of this development to the City. 26
27
Ms. Thomas stated she does not know the reason for the proposed resolution of 25 units/acre. 28
She would have loved to have that as redevelopment of the site benefits the community, 29
residents, and surrounding communities. She noted the proposal of 40 units/acre complies with 30
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and requested Council approve the Preliminary PUD and 31
Preliminary Plat for 2501 Lowry Avenue and the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change 32
2401 Lowry Avenue land use. 33
34
Ms. Monique Dubos, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated there seems to be great progress on the project 35
and closer to the 25 units/acre but that is still a lot of traffic and density. She stated it shouldn’t 36
be up to this development to address all the affordable housing needs in St. Anthony. She 37
addressed the planning goals and said going to the lower density of the range would be more 38
compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Dubos stated at the last meeting, she had presented a 39
petition with over 800 signatures and added a page containing more signatures. 40
41
Mr. Perry Thorvig, 3112 Townview Avenue, mentioned three points, noting he was in Mr. Casey 42
and Ms. Rothstein’s shoes for many years. He noted when you get the details of a potential 43
project, it’s different than initial general discussions. Mr. Thorvig stated the developers have 44
made some concessions on reducing units but they have not heard a single word that the 45
neighbors said about the use of the alley. He offered an alternative suggestion to eliminate 46
6
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 7
townhouses and replace them with dry water retention ponds or rain gardens and recreation 1
space. He noted on TIF, it is not known how much is proposed and there would be no tax base 2
from this project for 25 years. 3
4
Ms. Ginny Lahti, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated she is in favor of the redevelopment of Lowry 5
Grove and affordable housing even to the level of 97 units. She is in favor of the rezoning of the 6
area to high density but within the allowable range of 25-40 units/acre. She stated density and 7
height were always the issue and scaling back the density should not reduce the affordable 8
housing. She hopes an agreement can be reached between the developer and the City. 9
10
Ms. Patricia LeBossier, 2653 Stinson, stated there is an issue with flooding in her basement when 11
there is a heavy rain. She is concerned about the density. She noted the alley way is used as a 12
walkway for residents to the strip mall and she is concerned about keeping the City the way it is. 13
14
Ms. Carol Weiler, 2312 St. Anthony Parkway, referred to The Legacy density, the EAW Record 15
of Decision, and the letter from the Met Council regarding the EAW. She also referred to 16
Exhibits provided by the developer, noting density was the major concern that neighbors voiced 17
at many meetings. Ms. Weiler asked if an EAW has been done on the Bremer site since it was 18
added. 19
20
Mr. John Grevious, 2239 Wilson Street, thanked the Council for listening to the concerns, noting 21
most are livability factors based on density. He stated there needs to be a revised traffic study 22
given the comments by Hennepin County and he hopes the TAP is pursued. 23
24
Mr. Thomas Issacson, 2604 Pahl Avenue, stated he supports the resolution presented to the 25
Council. He believed that density needs to be reviewed as it fits within the existing 26
neighborhood. He is concerned about the use of the public alley and noted that employee parking 27
has not been addressed in the plan as well as weekend guests. There are issues at other CPG 28
properties. Mr. Issacson voiced his concerns about the townhomes and asked that CPG and The 29
Village settle with the Lowry Grove residents. He stated the affordable housing cannot 30
automatically go to Lowry Grove residents as that is illegal. He would like to see more 31
affordable units and recommended AEON as a partner for the City. 32
33
Ms. Kari Domeyer, Pahl Avenue, stated she lives very close to the former Lowry Grove site. Her 34
children attend St. Charles school. She is concerned with how the development will affect the 35
safety of the children going to the school, thinks this plan would negatively affect St. Charles 36
school and is not a good fit for the community. She requested Council support the resolution to 37
deny the current plan. 38
39
Mr. Tom Deegan, 2616 Pahl Avenue, supports Mr. Casey’s discussion posted on the City’s 40
website last Friday. He noted Lowry being a one-lane road now should be addressed in a new 41
traffic study. He stated he spoke with the State Fire Marshall yesterday and provided Council 42
with some documents about the Fire Vehicle Access Roads. 43
44
Mr. Chad Gillard, 2524 Pahl Avenue, requested the Council support Resolution 17-070 as this 45
plan would not benefit the citizens of St. Anthony. He stated the density is 6 times that of the 46
7
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 8
current density of their neighborhood and the units proposed are 2-3-bedroom units. He felt 1
families moved into St. Anthony because of the school system. He looks forward to a plan that is 2
25 units/acre density, brings in tax revenue, and allows affordable housing that will enhance and 3
not overwhelm the current school system. 4
5
Ms. Barbara Sullivan, 2613 Lowry Avenue NE, stated she is concerned about the infrastructure, 6
water, traffic study, and the EAW. She stated the City needs to look at their resources. 7
8
Mr. Ned Moore, 3500 38th Avenue S., representing the Assembly for Civil Rights, stated they 9
were involved in organizing the Lowry Grove residents. He is representing Antonia Alvarez who 10
is unable to make it tonight because her daughter is in the hospital. Mr. Moore quoted scripture 11
and demanded the City take responsibility for its actions and decisions and become a force for 12
justice rather than indifference. He felt the loss of Lowry Grove was in process for a long time 13
and that a group of residents concerned about the closing of Lowry Grove came to City Hall and 14
were told there was nothing for them to worry about. He stated residents looked to the City for 15
leadership and assistance and had requested meetings with the City Council but throughout the 16
14-month process, Council had very little to say. Mr. Moore stated the developer said if they had 17
known they would be limited to 25 units/acre, they never would have bought the property. Mr. 18
Moore stated this is astounding to play ‘bait and switch’ with the developer and the Council 19
needs to take responsibility for their role in the closing of Lowry Grove. He believed there was a 20
direct link between density and affordability and urged the Council to stand up for justice even if 21
it isn’t popular and honor the commitment made to Lowry Grove residents in the 2008 22
Comprehensive Plan. 23
24
Mr. Dale Nugent, 2734 Stinson Parkway, stated he is very concerned about having this developer 25
as their neighbor. He felt Stinson Parkway was a jewel in the neighborhood and that traffic 26
studies were garbage that have been done so far because they contain many false assumptions. 27
Mr. Nugent stated there needs to be a do over and he is excited about the prospect of getting 28
affordable housing into Lowry Grove. Mr. Nugent stated he is not so certain about the developer 29
but the TAP proposal sounds good. 30
31
Councilmember Gray stated when Mark Casey was hired he was excited about having a great 32
City Mana ger and over the past 1½ years , he is convinced Mr. Casey is an outstanding City 33
Manager, probably the best in the State. Councilmember Gray stated he is concerned that 34
Council is ignored in the process since Council is making the decisions. He noted the Council 35
did not have any meetings with the developer. He stated he has concerns about the proposal but 36
if the resolution is supported, that does not mean the Council is against affordable housing. He 37
indicated he will be voting in favor of the resolution. 38
39
Councilmember Stille stated he will be voting in favor of the resolution, noting that trying to 40
shame the City for its lack of affordable housing is ridiculous since there are 1,458 rental units 41
and 84% are affordable at some level up to 80% AMI. In addition, 433 units have been 42
developed within the last 15 years and of those, 52% are affordable. Councilmember Stille stated 43
he agrees there is an affordability crisis but the burden cannot be placed on St. Anthony. He felt 44
TAP would go a long way in bringing people together, noting the Council is listening to the 45
resident’s concerns. 46
8
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 9
1
Councilmember Jenson stated he will be voting to support the resolution as stated, noting 2
compatibility with surrounding land uses is part of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the 3
Comprehensive Plan states 25-40 units/acre so 41.4 units are still not compliant with the 4
Comprehensive Plan. He felt the developer should have done its due diligence by being aware of 5
the Comprehensive Plan provisions. 6
7
Mayor Faust reminded everyone this is a single project brought to the Council by the developer 8
and the affordable housing project does not stand alone. He stated the Council wants affordable 9
housing and it is the Council’s responsibility to look at the entire PUD and whether or not it 10
matches the community’s vision. He felt this specific proposal does not meet community needs. 11
12
Motion by Councilmember Stille, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve Resolution 13
17-070; a Resolution Denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PUD Preliminary 14
Development Plan/PUD Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat Related to The Village, LLC Project 15
Located at 2401 and 2501 Lowry Avenue. 16
17
The entire resolution was read by Councilmember Stille. 18
19
Motion Carried 4-0. 20
21
Mayor Faust hopes this is not the end. He requested City Manager Casey to research the TAP 22
and invited the developer to participate. He would like to work together to make a project the 23
City and Developer can be proud of. 24
25
B. Ordinance 2017-03; an Ordinance Approving the Comcast Cable Television Franchise. 26
27
Mr. Casey reviewed this is the second of three readings of an ordinance to approve the renewal 28
of the Comcast cable television franchise agreement. The third and final reading will be on 29
October 24, 2017. 30
31
Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve Second 32
Reading of Ordinance 2017-03, an Ordinance Approving the Comcast Cable Television 33
Franchise. 34
35
Motion Carried 4-0. 36
37
C. Quarterly Goals Update. 38
39
City Manager Casey provided the Quarterly Goals Update. As a result of the Annual Strategic 40
Planning Session, 61 action steps were created. This is for informational purposes and no action 41
is requested. 42
43
VII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 44
45
Councilmember Jenson stated he attended a portion of the Fire Department Open House. 46
9
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2017
Page 10
1
Councilmember Stille stated he attended the Fire Department Open House, noting it could 2
become a true community gathering. 3
4
Mayor Faust attended Tech Dump and was also at the Big Rigs. He attended the Regional 5
Council of Mayors and ULI Advisory Board where a discussion of the Amazon facility was held. 6
7
VIII. COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE. 8
9
IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 10
11
Mayor Faust stated The Village Notes are out. 12
13
X. ADJOURNMENT. 14
15
Mayor Faust adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. 16
17
Respectfully submitted, 18
Debbie Wolfe 19
TimeSaver off Site Secretarial, Inc. 20
21
22
Mayor 23
ATTEST: 24
City Clerk 25
26
27
10
Saint Anthony Village
DATE: October 24, 2017 Approved:
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: License Clerk
ITEM: License and Permits for Approval:
Mechanical Licenses:
Hoffman Refrigeration & Heating, Stillwater, MN
Jayhawk Mechanical, Minneapolis, MN
PB Services, Blaine, MN
The Snelling Company, St Paul, MN
Rental Licenses:
Applicant: Highcrest Manor Limited Partnership
Location: 3605 – 3615 37th Ave NE
Applicant: Girard Management
Location: 3713 – 3800 Foss Rd NE
Applicant: Tim Manning
Location: 3404 Roosevelt St NE
11
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
12
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 10/4/2017 - 10/25/2017 Oct 18, 2017 04:13PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
12180 ARVIG CONSTRUCTION 76 10/25/2017 249.00
10252 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 77 10/25/2017 1,102.16
10326 COMMERS CONDITIONED WATER 78 10/25/2017 145.00
11186 PAETEC 79 10/25/2017 251.25
11740 XCEL ENERGY 80 10/25/2017 35,518.23
12545 HAPPY'S POTATO CHIP COMPANY 33406 10/04/2017 150.00
10710 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 33407 10/06/2017 1,735.00
11792 INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL #49 33408 10/06/2017 414.00
11793 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES 33409 10/06/2017 833.00
10002 LOCAL UNION IAFF #3486 33410 10/06/2017 336.72
10039 AIRGAS USA LLC 33411 10/25/2017 38.35
10054 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL 33412 10/25/2017 843.00
1100 ARTISIAN BEER COMPANY 33413 10/25/2017 11,040.62
10116 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC 33414 10/25/2017 138.70
12546 BELDEN RIVER PROPERTIES LLC 33415 10/25/2017 3.16
1013 BELLBOY CORPORATION 33416 10/25/2017 3,370.85
1014 BELLBOY CORPORATION 33417 10/25/2017 118.00
1035 BERNICK'S BEVERAGE & VENDING 33418 10/25/2017 4,402.08
10172 BIFFS, INC.33419 10/25/2017 222.00
8544 BOURGET IMPORTS 33420 10/25/2017 187.00
1018 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER 33421 10/25/2017 10,777.77
1011 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 33422 10/25/2017 6,855.95
1009 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 33423 10/25/2017 5,110.58
10197 BRIAN NELSON INSPECTION SVCS 33424 10/25/2017 486.56
10218 BUREAU OF CRIM APPREHENSION 33425 10/25/2017 510.00
1114 CANNON RIVER WINERY 33426 10/25/2017 144.00
1017 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 33427 10/25/2017 14,410.60
10252 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 33428 10/25/2017 240.48
10254 CENTRAL LOCK & SAFE CO 33429 10/25/2017 157.50
10263 CENTURYLINK 33430 10/25/2017 705.96
10299 CITY OF ST. PAUL 33431 10/25/2017 887.32
1010 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE COMPANY 33432 10/25/2017 702.40
1042 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE 33433 10/25/2017 289.10
10438 D ROCK CENTER & SMALL ENG 33434 10/25/2017 52.00
11796 DO GOOD BIZ INC 33435 10/25/2017 381.54
10432 DORSEY & WHITNEY 33436 10/25/2017 4,924.08
12551 ECKMAN, LISA 33437 10/25/2017 396.78
10461 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.33438 10/25/2017 3,800.00
10474 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH, INC 33439 10/25/2017 153.14
12547 ERICKSON, MARK 33440 10/25/2017 267.96
10501 FASTENAL COMPANY 33441 10/25/2017 106.55
11758 FLOORS BY BECKER INC 33442 10/25/2017 5,323.00
10550 G & K SERVICES INC 33443 10/25/2017 702.39
10573 GOODIN COMPANY 33444 10/25/2017 20.47
1032 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INC.33445 10/25/2017 192.50
10624 HAWKINS, INC 33446 10/25/2017 1,483.04
10642 HENN CNTY INFO TECH DEPT 33447 10/25/2017 2,982.22
10661 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 33448 10/25/2017 75.00
10668 HENRICKSEN PSG 33449 10/25/2017 1,297.95
1019 HOHENSTEIN'S, INC 33450 10/25/2017 6,520.80
10684 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 33451 10/25/2017 176.76
1027 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 33452 10/25/2017 747.12
10733 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH, INC.33453 10/25/2017 90.00
Auto Pay
Auto Pay
Auto Pay
Auto Pay
Auto Pay
13
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 10/4/2017 - 10/25/2017 Oct 18, 2017 04:13PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
12552 JC MILLER & SONS INC 33454 10/25/2017 497.75
1016 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING 33455 10/25/2017 25,727.82
1102 JOHNSON BROTHERS 33456 10/25/2017 3,264.30
1004 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.33457 10/25/2017 9,359.74
1005 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.33458 10/25/2017 11,054.45
1006 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.33459 10/25/2017 11,328.20
1044 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.33460 10/25/2017 2,073.17
10797 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 33461 10/25/2017 346.37
12340 LARSON, ALISSA 33462 10/25/2017 61.88
1022 M. AMUNDSON LLP 33463 10/25/2017 1,989.47
11985 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 33464 10/25/2017 12,760.28
2005 MILK AND HONEY CIDERS 33465 10/25/2017 450.00
10989 MINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY AND 33466 10/25/2017 1,860.00
10992 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL 33467 10/25/2017 200.00
12373 MINNESOTA TRANSLATIONS 33468 10/25/2017 231.93
11019 MISTER CAR WASH 33469 10/25/2017 62.72
11061 MORRELL ENTERPRISES, LP 33470 10/25/2017 175.00
1125 NEGOCE 33471 10/25/2017 105.42
1051 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY 33472 10/25/2017 462.00
11110 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 33473 10/25/2017 208.74
12404 NORTH OAKS LAWN SERVICE INC 33474 10/25/2017 9,505.25
11163 OFFICE DEPOT 33475 10/25/2017 118.73
11174 O'MALLEY CONCRETE 33476 10/25/2017 19,268.00
11185 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC.33477 10/25/2017 630.00
1012 PAUSTIS & SONS 33478 10/25/2017 1,261.88
1001 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 33479 10/25/2017 3,734.69
1002 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 33480 10/25/2017 2,399.82
12550 PIPERIGHT PLUMBING 33481 10/25/2017 352.54
12311 PUCKETTS RECYCLING 33482 10/25/2017 40.00
11302 RAMSEY COUNTY 33483 10/25/2017 9,238.32
1123 RJM DISTRIBUTING INC 33484 10/25/2017 180.00
11991 RL LARSON EXCAVATING INC 33485 10/25/2017 34,798.50
1020 ROOTSTOCK WINE COMPANY 33486 10/25/2017 85.50
11345 ROSEVILLE CHRYSLER DODGE 33487 10/25/2017 246.83
11366 SAM'S CLUB 33488 10/25/2017 181.38
11399 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.33489 10/25/2017 278.00
2003 SIDESHOW BLOODY MARY MIX 33490 10/25/2017 144.00
11412 SIMPLEXGRINNELL 33491 10/25/2017 578.40
1024 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 33492 10/25/2017 9,995.68
1008 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 33493 10/25/2017 5,613.59
1026 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 33494 10/25/2017 38,893.27
1036 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 33495 10/25/2017 218.56
2001 STEEL TOE BREWING 33496 10/25/2017 404.00
11495 STILLE/RANDY 33497 10/25/2017 93.52
12548 STOP STICK LTD 33498 10/25/2017 4,462.00
12366 STREET FLEET 33499 10/25/2017 28.75
12430 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION 33500 10/25/2017 87,312.00
11529 SWEEPER SERVICES 33501 10/25/2017 50.55
11586 TRACY PRINTING 33502 10/25/2017 1,796.00
11819 TRUE NORTH ELECTRIC 33503 10/25/2017 4,167.65
12549 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & RECOVERY 33504 10/25/2017 350.00
11626 U.S. BANK (PURCHASING CARD)33505 10/25/2017 4,254.10
11674 VERIZON WIRELESS 33506 10/25/2017 337.18
14
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 10/4/2017 - 10/25/2017 Oct 18, 2017 04:13PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
11681 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 33507 10/25/2017 10.41
11932 VILLAGE EXPRESS WASH 33508 10/25/2017 133.28
1025 VINOCOPIA 33509 10/25/2017 359.50
11699 WAL-MART BUSINESS CENTER 33510 10/25/2017 34.28
11933 WIMACTEL INC 33511 10/25/2017 45.00
1034 WINE COMPANY/THE 33512 10/25/2017 667.60
1038 WINE MERCHANTS INC 33513 10/25/2017 663.55
11731 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GRP, INC.33514 10/25/2017 69.98
11738 WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.33515 10/25/2017 112,460.38
11740 XCEL ENERGY 33516 10/25/2017 83.72
6540 Z WINES USA LLC 33517 10/25/2017 162.00
Grand Totals: 569,997.27
15
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
16
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 17-071
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES FOR THE
2018 STATE PRIMARY AND STATE GENERAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 204B.16, subd 1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to
designate polling places for the upcoming year; and
WHEREAS, changes to the polling places locations may be made at least 90 days before the next election if one
or more of the authorized polling places becomes unavailable for use; and
WHEREAS, changes to the polling place locations may be made in the case of an emergency when it is
necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; and
WHEREAS, the state primary is August 14, 2018 and the state general election is November 6, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Anthony Village City Council hereby designates the
following polling places for elections conducted in the city in 2018:
Hennepin Precinct 1 Autumn Woods
2600 Kenzie Terrace
Hennepin Precinct 2 St. Anthony Community Center
3301 Silver Lake Road
Ramsey Precinct 1 Chandler Place
3701 Chandler Drive
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designate a replacement
meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling place designated in this Resolution that
becomes unavailable for use by the City;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designate an emergency
replacement polling place meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling place
designated in this Resolution when necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution and any
subsequent polling place designations to the Ramsey County Elections Office.
Adopted this 24th day of October, 2017.
_________________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:___________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Review for Administration: _______________________________________
Mark Casey, City Manager
17
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
18
1
To: Mayor Jerry Faust, City Council Members
City Manager Mark Casey
From: Jon Mangseth, Police Chief
Subject: Body Worn Camera (BWC) Policy
Date: October 24th, 2017
In front of you this evening is a staff report and appendixes for a Body Worn Camera policy. Per state
statute, the law adds a new public comment provision in Minnesota Statutes, section 626.8473. It states
that a law enforcement agency has to provide an opportunity for public comment before written policy
adoption.
The legislation and draft policy that applies to BWC’s can be found in the attached Appendix labelled:
A. Policy 30-0 Portable Audio/Video Recorders
B. Policy 9-28 (Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths), placing limitations on an officer’s
ability to view recordings prior to offering a statement or writing a report.
C. M.S.S. 626.8473 PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMS ADOPTION; WRITTEN POLICY
REQUIRED
D. M.S.S. 13.825 PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMS
E. Sample Data Retention Schedule
The St. Anthony Police Department has put together a final draft of its Body Worn Camera Policy. The
Police Department engaged in a comprehensive review and public input process for the development of
this policy.
The policy development process included input, discussion, and consultation with the following:
1. St. Anthony Police Department staff
2. Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension staff
3. Roseville, New Brighton and Burnsville Police Departments
4. Tri-City Body Cam Workgroup
5. St. Anthony City Attorney
6. Lauderdale/Falcon Heights City Attorney
7. Ramsey County Attorney’s Office
8. Hennepin County Attorney’s Office
9. League of Minnesota Cities
10. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) model policy
11. Harriet Tubman Center
12. National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)
13. MN Coalition for battered Women
14. City of Roseville IT division
15. St. Anthony-New Brighton School District
19
2
Why Body Worn Cameras?
• Due to recent national events, the use of body worn cameras (BWC) has quickly emerged as a
topic of discussion in many communities and police departments.
• The expectation of video footage in police related incidents has become a new reality.
• BWC Legislation, enacted August 1st, 2016, requires agencies implementing a BWC Program to
adhere to strict policy requirements, when adopting and implementing them.
• Used in conjunction with our Panasonic “in squad cameras” and Panasonic system cameras, to
be installed in booking and processing areas, we will have full system compatibility and
continuity with regard to officer/citizen contacts.
• St. Anthony Police Officer philosophy has been, “We want cameras, and we don’t want to work
without them.” This has been true for in squad cameras (since 2011) and has been echoed by
officers in regard to BWC.
• The BWC policy, much like other policies, will be a living document. Due to changes in
technology, case law and identified need, the police department will have to continually strive
to ensure we are following best practices.
• BWC’s can:
1. Help to strengthen and enhance transparency and accountability.
2. Provide an audio and visual record of interactions that can capture evidence, during
stressful, tense, rapidly developing situations.
3. Potentially reduce public complaints and use of force reports.
• IACP study reports 93% decrease in complaints nationwide.
The Benefits of BWC’s include:
• Cameras are an unbiased witness to capture the event and behavior of an officer (s),
individual/suspect/witness.
• Increases transparency and accountability of officers.
• May help provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.
• Video footage captured may help speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of
situations. This may lead to a reduction in court expenses due to an increase in pre-trial plea
bargains or possibly an increased rate of convictions.
• Video footage captured will aid in officer training and after action review of calls for service.
Concerns with BWC’s (Items to consider):
• According to early versions of policies governing their use, law enforcement officers must
physically activate the camera when they exit their patrol car. The recording equipment must be
manually activated when interacting with civilians or recording statements during investigations.
However, officers decide when to activate the camera, and for how long the footage is stored,
and if and when it should be made accessible to public. For example, the camera can be
20
3
deactivated when interviewing a victim of sexual assault or during a medical emergency, to
maintain the victim’s privacy.
• Privacy issues are of concern for both police and civilians. How to deal with those concerns was
taken care of with the passing of recent legislation effective August 1st, 2016. (MN S.S.
626.8473).
• Use of body cameras may prevent people from coming forward as credible witnesses to help
assist with investigations, due to fear of retaliation or fear of public exposure.
• Camera limitations - technological issues related to the cameras may prevent proper functioning
at times. This could be due to a dead battery, damaged components, obstructed lens, and other
problems. This could result in personnel missing important witness statements or crucial
behavior by officers or citizens.
• Camera position, clothing and weather related issues.
• The equipment has decreased in price. Potential costs involved in their use include the cost of
ongoing maintenance, and costs associated with storing and maintaining the video footage and
recorded data that is collected. In addition, costs would be associated with cataloging and
retrieving footage in response to subpoenas, investigations and public information requests.
• Time spent to investigate cases increases (viewing of all video).
• The cost and time associated with redaction of video.
Minnesota State Statute
Minnesota State Statute provides clear direction for law enforcement agencies who adopt and
implement a BWC program. Please reference Appendix C and D, in the council packet, regarding
Minnesota State Statutes:
• M.S.S. 626.8473 – Portable Recording Systems Adoption; Written Policy Required. (Appendix C)
• M.S.S. 13.825 – Portable Recording Systems. (Appendix D)
Minnesota Statutes, section 626.8473 requires cities to adopt written policies before implementation of
portable recording systems. These policies must be posted on the police department’s website. At a
minimum, the agency must accept public comments submitted electronically or by mail, and the
governing body with jurisdiction over the budget of the law enforcement agency must provide an
opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled meeting.
• At a minimum, written policies must incorporate the following:
(1) the requirements of section 13.825 (Appendix D) and other data classifications, access
procedures, retention policies, and data security safeguards that, at a minimum, meet the
requirements of chapter 13 and other applicable law; Appendix E, Retention of Data.
(2) procedures for testing the portable recording system to ensure adequate functioning;
Appendix A, SAPD Policy 30-3 Member Responsibilities.
21
4
3) procedures to address a system malfunction or failure, including requirements for
documentation by the officer using the system at the time of a malfunction or failure; Appendix
A, SAPD Policy 30-3 Member Responsibilities.
4) circumstances under which recording is mandatory, prohibited, or at the discretion of the
officer using the system; Appendix A, 30-7 Activation of the audio/video recorder. 30-7-1
Cessation of recording. 30-7-2 When activation is not required.
(5) circumstances under which a data subject must be given notice of a recording; Appendix A,
30-7-3 Surreptitious recordings.
(6) circumstances under which a recording may be ended while an investigation, response, or
incident is ongoing; Appendix A, 30-7 Activation of the audio/video recorder. 30-7-1 Cessation
of recording. 30-7-2, When activation is not required.
(7) procedures for the secure storage of portable recording system data and the creation of
backup copies of the data; and Appendix A, 30-9 Recording media storage and integrity. 30-9-1
Copies of recording media.
(8) procedures to ensure compliance and address violations of the policy, which must include, at
a minimum, supervisory or internal audits and reviews, and the employee discipline standards
for unauthorized access to data contained in section 13.09. Appendix A, 30-4 Supervisor
responsibilities. 30-5 Administrator responsibilities. 30-6 Coordinator. 30-14 Accountability.
30-15 Sanctions for misuse of recorded media. 30-16 Training.
The law adds a new public comment provision to Minnesota Statutes (Appendix C). The law
enforcement agency and city council must provide an opportunity for public comment before
purchasing or implementing a system. The law enforcement agency also has to provide an opportunity
for public comment before written policy adoption. (Why we are here today). In addition, adopted
policies must be posted on the law enforcement agency’s website.
Data classifications, access procedures, retention policies, and data security safeguards must be
included in policy. At a minimum, written policies must meet the requirements of chapter 13 and other
applicable law. Minnesota Statute 13.825 PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMS, Appendix D, establishes
data classifications, access procedures, retention policies, and data security safeguards that must be
included in policy.
• This comprehensive package of legislation on law enforcement use of BWC’s consists of:
Subd. 1. Application; definition.
Subd. 2. Data classification.
Subd. 3. Retention of data.
Subd. 4. Access by data subjects.
Subd. 5. Inventory of portable recording system technology. Labelled,
categorized and stored.
22
5
Subd. 6. Use of agency-issued portable recording systems.
Subd. 7. Authorization to access data.
Subd. 8. Sharing among agencies.
Subd. 9. Biennial audit.
Subd. 10. Notification to BCA.
Subd. 11. Portable recording system vendor.
Subd. 12. Penalties for violation.
Noteworthy references among this comprehensive package of legislation on law enforcement use of
BWC’s includes: classification of data, retention of data, access by data subjects, authorization to access
data and Biennial Audit.
Per state statute, body camera audio and video is private data on individuals or nonpublic data. Private
data on individuals or nonpublic data is accessible to the data subject and those whose job
responsibilities reasonably require access, but it is not generally accessible to the public. Body camera
data that is part of an active criminal investigation is generally confidential and not available to the
public or the data subject.
Body camera data is generally public in the following situations (Appendix D):
• When a peace officer discharges a firearm in the course of duty (but not a discharge for training
purposes or killing of animals).
• When use of force by a peace officer results in “substantial bodily harm.”
• When a data subject requests that the data be made accessible to the public - after redacting by
blurring video or distorting audio - of:
1. those who have not consented to the release and
2. undercover officers.
• When body camera data documenting the basis for discipline is part of personnel data after final
disposition of discipline.
• When made public by order of the court.
In situations beyond those stated above, law Enforcement agencies have discretion to make body
camera video public. A law enforcement agency may make body camera video that is classified as
confidential, protected nonpublic, private or nonpublic data accessible to the public if they have
determined that it will aid in the law enforcement process, promote public safety, or dispel widespread
rumor or unrest.
A law enforcement agency may redact or withhold access to portions of data that are public when the
data is “clearly offensive to common sensibilities.” A best practice would be to review the data with the
county and/or city attorney and determine what portions, if any, can be released to the public.
Any individual or entity whose image or voice is on portable system recording data is a subject of the
data. This includes on-duty peace officers engaged in an investigation or response to an emergency,
incident, or request for service. While subjects of the data generally have the right to be redacted from
23
6
any data released, an on-duty officer may not be redacted from such data. Outside of criminal
investigative data, body camera video is private data, which means the subject of the data may view the
recording. If the subject requests a copy of the data, the law enforcement agency must redact the data
on other individuals who do not consent to its release. The identity of an undercover law enforcement
officer must also be redacted for their protection.
Retention
Cities must maintain body camera data for a minimum of 90 days for non-active or inactive criminal
investigative data and one year for data related to:
• Discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty (but not for discharge for training
purposes or killing animals).
• Use of force by a peace officer resulting in substantial bodily harm.
• Formal complaint made against an officer related to an incident.
See Appendix E which depicts a non-inclusive list of SAPD retention periods that are reflective of the
requirements found in chapter 13.
The retention periods listed will provide department personnel the opportunity to retain the data
according to guidelines outlined by Minnesota Data Practices. If any video or audio recordings are
obtained in the body worn camera DVR system that is related to death or homicide; those recordings
must be saved on a DVD and placed in the case file to be retained permanently in accordance with
Minnesota Data Practices. These retention periods are consistent with regard to BWC’s and our current
in car Mobile Video Recording systems (MVR), which are already established in policy.
Subjects of the data may submit a written request to retain a body camera recording beyond the
applicable retention period for possible evidentiary or exculpatory use. When received, the law
enforcement agency must retain the recording for an additional period of time, up to 180 days. After
that extended retention period, the law enforcement agency must notify the requester that the
recording will be destroyed unless a new request is made. Individual cities can decide to retain body
camera recordings for as long as reasonably necessary for possible evidentiary or exculpatory use
related to the incident.
Circumstances under which recording is Mandatory, Prohibited, or Discretionary
Policy pertaining to the activation of the BWC is not intended to describe every possible situation in
which the recorder should be used, although there are many situations where its use is appropriate.
Members should activate the recorder any time the member believes it would be appropriate or
valuable to record an incident.
The recorder should be activated in any of the following situations:
• All enforcement and investigative contacts including stops and field interview (FI) situations.
These may include, but are not limited to pedestrian stops, suspicious persons, curfew
violations, people suspected of committing crimes.
• Traffic stops including, but not limited to, traffic violations, stranded motorist assistance and all
crime interdiction stops.
• Self-initiated activity in which a member would normally notify the Hennepin County or Ramsey
County Communications Dispatch Centers.
24
7
• Any other contact that becomes adversarial after the initial contact in a situation that would not
otherwise require recording.
Police Officer’s should remain sensitive to the dignity of all individuals being recorded and exercise
sound discretion to respect privacy by discontinuing recording whenever it reasonably appears to the
member that such privacy may outweigh any legitimate law enforcement interest in recording. Requests
by members of the public to stop recording should be considered using this same criterion. Recording
should resume when privacy is no longer at issue unless the circumstances no longer fit the criteria for
recording.
At no time is an officer expected to jeopardize his/her safety in order to activate a portable recorder or
change the recording media. However, the recorder should be activated in situations, described above,
as soon as reasonably practicable.
Access to Data
Per state statute, when providing authorization to access data, the responsible authority for a law
enforcement agency must establish written procedures to ensure that law enforcement personnel have
access to the portable recording system data that are not public, only if authorized in writing by the
chief of police, sheriff, or head of the law enforcement agency, or their designee, to obtain access to the
data for a legitimate, specified law enforcement purpose.
Officers shall document in the Post Note field of the Back End Client software the purpose for accessing
any recorded file. This documentation is to clarify the reason for viewing the recording when developing
the audit trail.
SAPD Policy 30-8 covers officer review of recorded media files (Appendix A). The policy notes that when
preparing written reports, members are permitted to review their recordings as a resource when writing
reports.
SAPD Policy 9-28 Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths (Appendix B) places limitations on an officer’s
ability to view recordings prior to offering a statement or writing a report in situations where officers
have used or attempted to use deadly force. The policy falls in line with MN BCA Policy regarding the
investigation of an Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) and indicates that when an Investigative Agent is
taking a statement from a St. Anthony Police Officer, who used or attempted to use deadly force in a
critical incident and the incident is captured on video or audio recordings, the officer will be requested
to provide a voluntary interview of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. Neither the
officer nor their attorney will be permitted to view the video prior to providing a voluntary statement.
However, a peace officer may view the video following the voluntary interview, if they request to do so,
to assist in clarifying any portion of their statement. The viewing of the video will be limited to the
incident captured on the officer’s own dash camera or BWC.
If, upon discussing the incident with legal counsel, the officer chooses not to provide a statement or
write a report, neither the officer nor their attorney will be permitted to view the video. The decision to
allow the officer and their attorney to view video will rest with the independent investigative authority,
i.e., MN BCA and/or the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters.
25
8
Audit
Law enforcement agencies are required to conduct an independent biennial audit of portable recording
system data. The results are public, unless otherwise classified under the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act (MGDPA). In cities, the city council determines whether the law enforcement agency is
complying with the law. If not, the city council can order additional independent audits. A summary
report must be provided to the Legislative Committee on Data Practices and Personal Data Privacy
within 60 days following completion of the audit. If the city council finds that there is a pattern of
substantial noncompliance, it must suspend the use of portable recording systems until the city council
reinstates their use. Suspension can only happen after providing the law enforcement agency and the
public a reasonable opportunity to respond to the audit findings in a public meeting. State statute does
not specify what makes the audit “independent.” This is a similar auditing requirement that is in the
automated license plate reader (ALPR) statute, so we could rely on their ALPR auditing practices. For
further guidance, we will consult with our city attorney.
Tri-City Body Cam Workgroup
A Tri-City Body Camera Workgroup was convened to review current police policies and protocols, best
practices and trends, and policy development in order to present recommendations to the Chief of
Police for the drafting of a BWC policy. The group was made up of appointed residents and City Council
liaisons from St. Anthony, Falcon Heights, and Lauderdale. The group met on a monthly basis from
January through April, during which a BWC draft policy was reviewed and considered. The meetings
were facilitated by Burnsville Police Chief Eric Gieseke, who was able to provide his vast base of
knowledge and experience, as his police department was one of the first police agencies to bring BWC
technology to Minnesota back in 2010.
The group received information presented by outside subject matter experts:
• Current MN State Statutes regarding BWCs (Chief Gieseke/Chief Mangseth)
• BWC demonstration (Chief Gieseke and Burnsville PD staff)
• MN Data Practices and how MN State Statute deals with information recorded by portable video
recording devices (Don Gemberling – MN Data Practices Author)
• How outside agencies assist in investigating police critical incidents, including policy
considerations reference BWCs (Jeff Hanson – Deputy Superintendent of Investigations, MN BCA)
• Technology considerations concerning BWCs, data storage, and redaction (Burnsville PD staff)
• IT and back end client considerations pertaining to operating hardware, software, media/data
storage and technical support (Terre Heiser – IT Manager, City of Roseville/Metro I-Net.
The draft policy was presented to the League of MN Cities legal division, by the St. Anthony Police Chief,
for review by a League Attorney, assigned by the League of MN Cities. No changes were recommended.
Funding
In February, 2017, the St. Anthony Police Department applied for funding under the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and
Implementation Program. The grant holds a matched funding requirement to assist in purchasing
equipment, policy development, training, and other needs related to implementing a BWC program. We
were recently notified that we will be awarded funding under this DOJ grant. We will be working
through the process of accepting this grant and remain encouraged to begin the implementation
process.
26
9
Stakeholders Review
There are various organizations that were considered stakeholders in the implementation of a BWC
Policy and Implementation Program. All of the identified stakeholder groups were consulted and made
aware of our intention to implement a BWC program and our plan to fund such plan. These groups
included the St. Anthony-New Brighton School District, Law Enforcement Labor Services, The Tri-City
Body Camera Workgroup, The Ramsey and Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, The Harriet Tubman
Center, the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, Hedback, Arendt & Carlson PLLC – (St. Anthony
City Attorney), Hughes & Joseph Attorneys at Law – (Falcon Heights/Lauderdale City Attorney), and the
National Alliance on Mental Illness. They provided letters of support for the program and offered the
following interests and concerns:
• St. Anthony-New Brighton School District: “We think body-cameras help reduce officer
misconduct complaints and instill trust in our officers.”
• Law Enforcement Labor Services: “We believe that body-worn cameras have the potential to
significantly increase trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.
St. Anthony is no exception.”
• Tri-City Body Camera Workgroup: “We are aware that recent studies have shown that body-
worn cameras have led to an increase in community trust and transparency, have reduced the
number of officer complaints, increased the credibility and ease of evidence collection, and we
expect these same types of results in our communities as well.”
• Ramsey County Attorney’s Office: “...our office is...anticipating them to be a significant tool in
our duties as prosecuting attorneys. We see them as a vital resource in our office’s charging and
prosecuting decision-making process, including value as a potential evidence source for trial.”
They also spoke about the reduction in officer complaints and an increase in community trust
that BWCs will bring.
• Harriet Tubman Center: They recognize the trust and transparency that a BWC program brings.
However, they stated, “We have some concerns about the use of body-cameras in particular as
it relates to officers wearing body-cameras when entering one of our domestic abuse shelters.
Maintaining the confidentiality and safety of victims and bystanders is a core value of ours that
cannot be compromised.”
• Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women: “MCBW believes that law enforcement’s use of body
cameras can be a helpful tool in increasing law enforcement’s transparency with the public. We
also have concerns about how individual department’s policies can impact the privacy of victims
in their homes and in public.”
• Hedback, Arendt & Carlson PLLC: Similar to the Ramsey County Attorney’s statement.
• Hughes & Joseph: Trust and transparency, reduction of officer misconduct complaints, and as an
evidence collection tool.
• National Alliance on Mental Illness: “Their [body-worn camera] use is beneficial in terms of
transparency and accountability by police, but can be problematic in terms of personal privacy.
NAMI Minnesota advocates policies that protect the privacy of someone experiencing a mental
illness crisis.
27
10
Training
All users of the BWC and MVR systems, along with supervisors, will all receive instruction prior to the
approved technology being deployed in the field. This training shall be documented by the Supervisor in
charge of training. Two members of the department will be identified to receive additional instruction,
by the technology manufacturer, to become staff trainers for the BWC technology that is adopted by the
police department.
Conclusion
The officers and staff of the St. Anthony Police Department are excited to begin the process of
implementing BWC technology. Used in conjunction with our Panasonic “in squad cameras” and
system cameras, installed in booking and processing areas, we will have full system compatibility and
continuity with regard to officer/citizen contacts. Due to inevitable improvements in technology, along
with additional changes due to case law, the police department will continually strive to ensure we are
following best practices
Upon adoption of BWC policy, we will offer the final draft to mentioned stakeholder groups in an effort
to find the best balance in meeting the varying needs of the community we serve, while holding to the
spirit of the legislation that became effective August 1st, 2016.
28
Appendix A
*St. Anthony Police Department Principles and Practices Manual
30-0 Portable Audio/Video Recorders
30-1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines for the use of portable audio/video recording devices by members of this
department while in the performance of their duties (Minn. Stat. § 626.8473). Portable audio/video
recording devices include all recording systems whether body-worn, handheld or integrated into
portable equipment.
This policy does not apply to mobile audio/video recordings, interviews or interrogations conducted at
any St. Anthony Police Department facility, undercover operations, wiretaps or eavesdropping
(concealed listening devices) unless captured by a portable recording system.
30-1-1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:
Portable recording system - A device worn by a member that is capable of both video and audio
recording of the member’s activities and interactions with others or collecting digital multimedia
evidence as part of an investigation and as provided in Minn. Stat. § 13.825.
30-2 POLICY
The St. Anthony Police Department may provide members with access to portable recorders for use
during the performance of their duties. The use of recorders is intended to enhance the mission of the
Department by accurately capturing contacts between members of the Department and the public.
30-2-1 MOBILE VIDEO RECORDER OBJECTIVES
The St. Anthony Police Department has adopted the use of portable audio/video recorders to
accomplish the following objectives:
(a) To enhance officer safety.
(b) To document statements and events during the course of an incident.
(c) To enhance the officer's ability to document and review statements and actions for both
internal reporting requirements and for courtroom preparation/presentation.
(d) To preserve audio and visual information for use in current and future investigations.
(e) To provide a tool for self-critique and field evaluation during officer training.
(f) To enhance the public trust by preserving factual representations of officer-citizen interactions
in the form of audio-video recordings.
(g) To assist with the defense of civil actions against law enforcement officers and the City of St.
Anthony.
(h) To assist with the training and evaluation of officers.
30-3 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES
Prior to going into service, each uniformed member will be responsible for making sure that he/she is
equipped with a portable recorder issued by the Department, and that the recorder is in good working
29
order (Minn. Stat. § 13.825). If the recorder is not in working order or the member becomes aware of a
malfunction at any time, the member shall promptly report the failure to his/her supervisor and obtain a
functioning device as soon as reasonably practicable. Uniformed members should wear the recorder in a
conspicuous manner or otherwise notify persons that they are being recorded, whenever reasonably
practicable (Minn. Stat. § 626.8473).
Any member assigned to a non-uniformed position may carry an approved portable recorder at any time
the member believes that such a device may be useful. Unless conducting a lawful recording in an
authorized undercover capacity, non-uniformed members should wear the recorder in a conspicuous
manner when in use or otherwise notify persons that they are being recorded, whenever reasonably
practicable.
When using a portable recorder, the assigned member shall record his/her name, employee number
and the current date and time at the beginning and the end of the shift or other period of use,
regardless of whether any activity was recorded. This procedure is not required when the recording
device and related software captures the user’s unique identification and the date and time of each
recording.
Members should document the existence of a recording in any report or other official record of the
contact, including any instance where the recorder malfunctioned or the member deactivated the
recording (Minn. Stat. § 626.8473). Members should include the reason for deactivation.
30-3-1 SPARE DEVICES
When using a spare device, or one that is not assigned to the member, it is the member's responsibility
to notify the supervisor on duty of the reason they are unable to use their issued equipment. In
addition, it is the member's responsibility to notify the Records Supervisor to ensure the evidence that
was recorded on that device can be reassigned to the recording member in the Back End Client
software.
30-4 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Supervisors shall ensure officers are using their portable audio/video recorders per policy.
Supervisors should determine corrective action for non-functioning portable audio/video recorders.
When an incident arises that requires the immediate retrieval of the recorded media (e.g., serious crime
scenes, peace officer-involved shootings, department-involved collisions), a supervisor shall ensure that
the portable audio/video recorders are properly uploaded.
30-5 ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBILITIES
The portable audio/video recorder administrator (designated personnel authorized by the Chief of
Police) are responsible for deleting media:
(a) Pursuant to a court order.
(b) In accordance with established records retention policies, including reissuing all other media
deemed to be of no evidentiary value.
(c) In instances where privacy issues are noted and no evidentiary value exists.
(d) Ordering, issuing, retrieving and storing all portable audio/video recorders.
(e) Logs reflecting portable audio/video recorder assignments, serial number, the date it was
issued, and the officer to which it was issued.
30
30-6 COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should designate a coordinator responsible for
(Minn. Stat. § 626.8473; Minn. Stat. § 13.825):
(a) Establishing procedures for the security, storage and maintenance of data and recordings.
1. The coordinator (Services Manager) should work with the Custodian of
Records (Records Supervisor) and the member assigned to coordinate the use,
access and release of protected information to ensure that procedures comply with
requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) and other
applicable laws (Minn. Stat. § 13.01 et seq.) (See the Standards of Conduct Policy,
Principles 2 and 8, and the Maintenance and Disclosure of Data Policy 13-7)
(b) Establishing procedures for accessing data and recordings.
1. These procedures should include the process to obtain written authorization for
access to non-public data by SAPD members and members of other governmental
entities and agencies.
(c) Establishing procedures for logging or auditing access.
(d) Establishing procedures for transferring, downloading, tagging or marking events.
(e) Establishing an inventory of portable recorders including:
1. Total number of devices owned or maintained by the St. Anthony Police Department.
2. Daily record of the total number deployed and used by members and, if applicable,
the precinct or district in which the devices were used.
3. Total amount of recorded audio and video data collected by the devices and
maintained by the St. Anthony Police Department.
(f) Preparing the biennial audit required by Minn. Stat. § 13.825, Subd. 9.
(g) Notifying the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) in a timely manner when new equipment
is obtained by the St. Anthony Police Department that expands the type or scope of surveillance
capabilities of the department’s portable recorders.
30-7 ACTIVATION OF THE AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDER
This policy is not intended to describe every possible situation in which the recorder should be used,
although there are many situations where its use is appropriate. Members should activate the recorder
any time the member believes it would be appropriate or valuable to record an incident.
The recorder should be activated in any of the following situations:
(a) All enforcement and investigative contacts including stops and field interview (FI) situations
(b) Traffic stops including, but not limited to, traffic violations, stranded motorist assistance and all
crime interdiction stops
(c) Self-initiated activity in which a member would normally notify the Hennepin County or Ramsey
County Communications Dispatch Centers.
(d) Any other contact that becomes adversarial after the initial contact in a situation that would not
otherwise require recording.
31
Members should remain sensitive to the dignity of all individuals being recorded and exercise sound
discretion to respect privacy by discontinuing recording whenever it reasonably appears to the member
that such privacy may outweigh any legitimate law enforcement interest in recording. Requests by
members of the public to stop recording should be considered using this same criterion. Recording
should resume when privacy is no longer at issue unless the circumstances no longer fit the criteria for
recording.
At no time is a member expected to jeopardize his/her safety in order to activate a portable recorder or
change the recording media. However, the recorder should be activated in situations described above as
soon as reasonably practicable.
30-7-1 CESSATION OF RECORDING
Once activated, the portable recorder should usually remain on continuously until the member
reasonably believes that his/her direct participation in the incident is complete or the situation no
longer fits the criteria for activation.
Recording may be temporarily ceased or the audio muted to exchange information with other officers,
legal counsel, or the lens obstructed in order to avoid capturing images of undercover officers,
informants, or citizens where based on training and experience, in the judgement of the officer a
recording would not be appropriate or consistent with this policy. The reason to cease and resume
recording (or to mute audio or obstruct the lens) will be noted by the officer either verbally on the
portable audio/video recorder or in a written report.
Recording may be stopped during significant periods of inactivity such as report writing or other breaks
from direct participation in the incident.
Formal statements recorded on portable audio/video recorders shall be recorded as separate
recordings. Recordings shall be categorized, titled and identified in accordance with established policies
and procedures.
30-7-2 WHEN ACTIVATION IS NOT REQUIRED
Activation of the portable audio/video recorder system is not required:
(a) During encounters with undercover officers or informants.
(b) When an officer is on break or is otherwise engaged in personal activities.
(c) In any location where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a restroom,
locker room or break room.
(d) When not in service or actively on patrol.
30-7-3 SURREPTITIOUS RECORDINGS
Minnesota law permits an individual to surreptitiously record any conversation in which one party to the
conversation has given his/her permission (Minn. Stat. § 626A.02).
Members of the Department may surreptitiously record any conversation during the course of a criminal
investigation in which the member reasonably believes that such a recording will be lawful and
beneficial to the investigation.
32
Members shall not surreptitiously record another department member without a court order unless
lawfully authorized by the Chief of Police or the authorized designee.
30-8 REVIEW OF RECORDED MEDIA FILES
When preparing written reports, members are permitted to review their recordings as a resource (See
the Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths Policy 9-28 for guidance in those cases). However, members
shall not retain personal copies of recordings. Members should not use the fact that a recording was
made as a reason to write a less detailed report.
Supervisors are authorized to review relevant recordings any time they are investigating alleged
misconduct or reports of meritorious conduct or whenever such recordings would be beneficial in
reviewing the member’s performance.
Recorded files may also be reviewed:
(a) Upon approval by a supervisor, by any member of the Department who is participating in an
official investigation, such as a personnel complaint, administrative investigation or criminal
investigation.
(b) Pursuant to lawful process or by court personnel who are otherwise authorized to review
evidence in a related case.
(c) In compliance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act request, if permitted or required by the
Act, including pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.82, Subd. 15, and in accordance with the Records
Maintenance and Release Policy 8-1.
Officers shall document in the Post Note field of the Back End Client software the purpose for accessing
any recorded file. This documentation is to clarify the reason for viewing the recording when developing
the audit trail.
All recordings should be reviewed by the Custodian of Records (Records Supervisor) prior to public
release (See the Records Maintenance and Release Policy 8-1). Recordings that are clearly offensive to
common sensibilities should not be publicly released unless disclosure is required by law or order of the
court (Minn. Stat. § 13.82, Subd. 7).
30-9 RECORDING MEDIA STORAGE AND INTEGRITY
At the end of their shift, officers shall place the portable audio/video recorder into the docking station.
This will allow the data to be transferred from the audio/video recorder through the docking station to
Arbitrator Back End Client. The data is considered impounded at this point and the portable audio/video
recorder is cleared of existing data. The portable audio/video recorder should not be removed from the
docking station until the data has been uploaded and the battery has been fully recharged.
30-9-1 COPIES OF RECORDING MEDIA
Evidentiary copies of digital recordings will be accessed and copied from the Back End Client software
for official law enforcement purposes only. Access rights may be given to the Hennepin County
Attorney, Ramsey County Attorney, St. Anthony, Lauderdale and Falcon Heights City Attorney’s, or other
prosecutorial agencies associated with any future prosecution arising from an incident in which the
portable audio/video recorder was utilized.
33
Officers shall ensure relevant recordings are preserved. Officers or portable audio/video recorder
administrators may prevent automatic deletion by changing the category of the media at any time prior
to deletion.
30-10 SYSTEM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS
(a) Portable audio/video recorder system use should be based on officer safety requirements and
device manufacturer recommendations.
(b) The portable audio/video recorder system should be configured to minimally buffer for 30
seconds prior to activation.
(c) For each digital recording, officers shall select the proper category. Members shall enter the 8-
digit case file number or the full citation number and descriptive title. The title should clearly
describe the nature of the recording. For example:
1. Initial Contact (if use of force was used, add UOF)
2. Booking
3. Transport (if The Wrap was used, add Wrap)
4. Impound
5. Narr (narrative report)
6. IC Jane Doe (implied consent)
7. SS John Doe (suspect statement)
8. VS Jane Doe (victim statement)
9. WS Jane Doe (witness statement)
10. Telephone Call with John Doe
(d) Digital recordings shall be retained according to the Department's retention schedule or as
required by the rules of evidence, unless a specific request is made to store them for a longer
period of time by an authorized person.
(e) Members shall not attempt to delete, alter, reuse, modify or tamper with portable audio/video
recorder systems or recordings.
30-11 CLASSIFICATION OF MVR DATA
Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as changing the underlying classification of data collected by
portable audio/video recorder systems. The classification of data collected by portable audio/ video
recorder systems will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis upon application and
interpretation of the MGDPA and other laws.
30-12 PROHIBITED USE OF AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDERS
Members are prohibited from using department-issued portable recorders and recording media for
personal use and are prohibited from making personal copies of recordings created while on duty or
while acting in their official capacity.
Members are also prohibited from retaining recordings of activities or information obtained while on-
duty, whether the recording was created with department-issued or personally owned recorders.
Members shall not duplicate or distribute such recordings, except for authorized legitimate department
business purposes. All such recordings shall be retained at the Department.
Members are prohibited from using personally owned recording devices while on-duty without the
express consent of the on duty supervisor or OIC. Any member who uses a personally owned recorder
for department-related activities shall comply with the provisions of this policy, including retention and
34
release requirements and should notify the on-duty supervisor of such use as soon as reasonably
practicable.
Recordings shall not be used by any member for the purpose of embarrassment, harassment or ridicule.
30-13 RETENTION OF RECORDINGS
All recordings shall be retained for a period consistent with the requirements of the organization’s
records retention schedule but in no event for a period less than 90 days, except as provided in
accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act.
If an individual captured in a recording submits a written request, the recording may be retained for an
additional time period. The coordinator should be responsible for notifying the individual prior to
destruction of the recording (Minn. Stat. § 13.825).
30-13-1 RELEASE OF AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDINGS
Requests for the release of audio/video recordings shall be processed in accordance with the
Records Maintenance and Release and Disclosure of Data Policies.
30-13-2 ACCESS TO RECORDINGS
Except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 13.825, Subd. 2, audio/video recordings are considered private or
nonpublic data.
Any person captured in a recording may have access to the recording. If the individual requests a copy of
the recording and does not have the consent of other non-law enforcement individuals captured on the
recording, the identity of those individuals must be blurred or obscured sufficiently to render the subject
unidentifiable prior to release. The identity of on-duty peace officers may not be obscured unless their
identity is protected under Minn. Stat. § 13.82, Subd. 17.
30-14 ACCOUNTABILITY
Any member who accesses or releases recordings without authorization may be subject to discipline
(See the Standards of Conduct Policy 4-0, Principle 2 and 8 and the Maintenance and Disclosure of Data
Policy 13-7) (Minn. Stat. §626.8473).
30-15 SANCTIONS FOR MISUSE OF RECORDED MEDIA
Any member misusing recorded media for other than official law enforcement purposes will be subject
to disciplinary action.
The Chief of Police, or designee, shall meet with the person who is alleged to have violated the policy
and determine appropriate sanctions, which may include any or all of the standard discipline policies
currently in place at the St. Anthony Police Department including verbal reprimand, written reprimand,
suspension or termination. Intentional misuse of recorded media is a serious violation. If criminal
behavior is believed to have occurred, appropriate agencies will be notified for further investigation.
The specific situation in each case of misuse of recorded media will be looked at with all circumstances
considered when determining disciplinary actions. Consideration will be given to the extent of the loss
or injury to the system, agency, or other person upon release or disclosure of sensitive or classified
information to an unauthorized individual.
35
30-16 TRAINING
Users of the MVR systems and supervisors shall successfully complete an approved course of instruction
prior to being deployed. This training shall be documented by the Supervisor in charge of training.
Appendix B
36
SAPD Policy 9-28 (Officer-Involved Shootings and Deaths), Interviews, places limitations on an officer’s
ability to view recordings prior to offering a statement or writing a report. Policy falls in line with the MN
BCA policy regarding the investigation of an officer-involved shooting.
• When an Investigative Agent is taking a statement from a St. Anthony Police Officer who
used or attempted to use deadly force in a critical incident and the incident is captured
on video or audio recordings, the following process should normally take place:
I. The peace officer will be requested to provide a voluntary interview
of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.
II. Neither the officer nor their attorney will be permitted to view the
video prior to providing a voluntary statement. However, a peace
officer may view the video following the voluntary interview if they
request to do so to assist in clarifying any portion of their statement.
The viewing of the video will be limited to the incident captured on
the officer’s own dash camera or BWC.
III. If the peace officer requests to view the video, they will be afforded
an opportunity to do so at the conclusion of the voluntary statement.
The Investigative Agent should make arrangements to show the video
as soon as feasible following the statement. Investigative personnel
should be present for the viewing of the video and the officer’s legal
representation may be present as well. No other persons, other than
people needed for technical assistance, should be present for the
viewing of this video.
IV. If multiple cameras from other sources captured the incident, the
Investigative Agent shall determine if additional video should be
shown to the involved officer on a case by case basis.
V. At the conclusion of the viewing of this video, the peace officer shall
be afforded the opportunity to consult privately with their attorney.
VI. Once such consultation has occurred, the Investigative Agent shall
provide an opportunity to the involved peace officer to clarify any
portions of their statement after viewing the video.
Appendix C
M.S.S. 626.8473 PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMS ADOPTION; WRITTEN POLICY REQUIRED. *
37
Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, "portable recording system" has the meaning
provided in section 13.825, subdivision 1.
Subd. 2. Public comment. A local law enforcement agency must provide an opportunity for public
comment before it purchases or implements a portable recording system. At a minimum, the agency
must accept public comments submitted electronically or by mail, and the governing body with
jurisdiction over the budget of the law enforcement agency must provide an opportunity for public
comment at a regularly scheduled meeting.
Subd. 3. Written policies and procedures required.
(a) The chief officer of every state and local law enforcement agency that uses or proposes to use a
portable recording system must establish and enforce a written policy governing its use. In developing
and adopting the policy, the law enforcement agency must provide for public comment and input as
provided in subdivision 2. Use of a portable recording system without adoption of a written policy
meeting the requirements of this section is prohibited. The written policy must be posted on the
agency's Web site, if the agency has a Web site.
(b) At a minimum, the written policy must incorporate the following:
(1) the requirements of section 13.825 and other data classifications, access procedures, retention
policies, and data security safeguards that, at a minimum, meet the requirements of chapter 13 and
other applicable law;
(2) procedures for testing the portable recording system to ensure adequate functioning;
(3) procedures to address a system malfunction or failure, including requirements for documentation by
the officer using the system at the time of a malfunction or failure;
(4) circumstances under which recording is mandatory, prohibited, or at the discretion of the officer
using the system;
(5) circumstances under which a data subject must be given notice of a recording;
(6) circumstances under which a recording may be ended while an investigation, response, or incident is
ongoing;
(7) procedures for the secure storage of portable recording system data and the creation of backup
copies of the data; and
(8) procedures to ensure compliance and address violations of the policy, which must include, at a
minimum, supervisory or internal audits and reviews, and the employee discipline standards for
unauthorized access to data contained in section 13.09.
Appendix D
M.S.S. 13.825 PORTABLE RECORDING SYSTEMS.
38
Subdivision 1. Application; definition.
(a) This section applies to law enforcement agencies that maintain a portable recording system for use
in investigations, or in response to emergencies, incidents, and requests for service.
(b) As used in this section:
(1) "portable recording system" means a device worn by a peace officer that is capable of both video
and audio recording of the officer's activities and interactions with others or collecting digital
multimedia evidence as part of an investigation;
(2) "portable recording system data" means audio or video data collected by a portable recording
system; and
(3) "redact" means to blur video or distort audio so that the identity of the subject in a recording is
obscured sufficiently to render the subject unidentifiable.
Sud. 2. Data classification; court-authorized disclosure.
(a) Data collected by a portable recording system are private data on individuals or nonpublic data,
subject to the following:
(1) data that document the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, if a notice is
required under section 626.553, subdivision 2, or the use of force by a peace officer that results in
substantial bodily harm, as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 7a, are public;
(2) data are public if a subject of the data requests it be made accessible to the public, except that, if
practicable, (i) data on a subject who is not a peace officer and who does not consent to the release
must be redacted, and (ii) data on a peace officer whose identity is protected under section 13.82,
subdivision 17, clause (a), must be redacted;
(3) portable recording system data that are active criminal investigative data are governed by
section 13.82, subdivision 7, and portable recording system data that are inactive criminal investigative
data are governed by this section;
(4) portable recording system data that are public personnel data under section 13.43, subdivision 2,
clause (5), are public; and
(5) data that are not public data under other provisions of this chapter retain that classification.
(b) A law enforcement agency may redact or withhold access to portions of data that are public under
this subdivision if those portions of data are clearly offensive to common sensibilities.
(c) Section 13.04, subdivision 2, does not apply to collection of data classified by this subdivision.
(d) Any person may bring an action in the district court located in the county where portable recording
system data are being maintained to authorize disclosure of data that are private or nonpublic under
39
this section or to challenge a determination under paragraph (b) to redact or withhold access to
portions of data because the data are clearly offensive to common sensibilities. The person bringing the
action must give notice of the action to the law enforcement agency and subjects of the data, if known.
The law enforcement agency must give notice to other subjects of the data, if known, who did not
receive the notice from the person bringing the action. The court may order that all or part of the data
be released to the public or to the person bringing the action. In making this determination, the court
shall consider whether the benefit to the person bringing the action or to the public outweighs any harm
to the public, to the law enforcement agency, or to a subject of the data and, if the action is challenging
a determination under paragraph (b), whether the data are clearly offensive to common sensibilities.
The data in dispute must be examined by the court in camera. This paragraph does not affect the right
of a defendant in a criminal proceeding to obtain access to portable recording system data under the
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Subd. 3. Retention of data.
(a) Portable recording system data that are not active or inactive criminal investigative data and are not
described in paragraph (b) must be maintained for at least 90 days and destroyed according to the
agency's records retention schedule approved pursuant to section 138.17.
(b) Portable recording system data must be maintained for at least one year and destroyed according to
the agency's records retention schedule approved pursuant to section 138.17 if:
(1) the data document (i) the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty if a notice is
required under section 626.553, subdivision 2, or (ii) the use of force by a peace officer that results in
substantial bodily harm; or
(2) a formal complaint is made against a peace officer related to the incident.
(c) If a subject of the data submits a written request to the law enforcement agency to retain the
recording beyond the applicable retention period for possible evidentiary or exculpatory use related to
the circumstances under which the data were collected, the law enforcement agency shall retain the
recording for an additional time period requested by the subject of up to 180 days and notify the
requester that the recording will then be destroyed unless a new request is made under this paragraph.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) or (c), a government entity may retain a recording for as long as
reasonably necessary for possible evidentiary or exculpatory use related to the incident with respect to
which the data were collected.
Subd. 4. Access by data subjects.
(a) For purposes of this chapter, a portable recording system data subject includes the peace officer who
collected the data, and any other individual or entity, including any other peace officer, regardless of
whether the officer is or can be identified by the recording, whose image or voice is documented in the
data.
(b) An individual who is the subject of portable recording system data has access to the data, including
data on other individuals who are the subject of the recording. If the individual requests a copy of the
40
recording, data on other individuals who do not consent to its release must be redacted from the copy.
The identity and activities of an on-duty peace officer engaged in an investigation or response to an
emergency, incident, or request for service may not be redacted, unless the officer's identity is subject
to protection under section 13.82, subdivision 17, clause (a).
Subd. 5. Inventory of portable recording system technology.
A law enforcement agency that uses a portable recording system must maintain the following
information, which is public data:
(1) the total number of recording devices owned or maintained by the agency;
(2) a daily record of the total number of recording devices actually deployed and used by officers and, if
applicable, the precincts in which they were used;
(3) the policies and procedures for use of portable recording systems required by section 626.8473; and
(4) the total amount of recorded audio and video data collected by the portable recording system and
maintained by the agency, the agency's retention schedule for the data, and the agency's procedures for
destruction of the data.
Subd. 6. Use of agency-issued portable recording systems.
While on duty, a peace officer may only use a portable recording system issued and maintained by the
officer's agency in documenting the officer's activities.
Subd. 7. Authorization to access data.
(a) A law enforcement agency must comply with sections 13.05, subdivision 5, and 13.055 in the
operation of portable recording systems and in maintaining portable recording system data.
(b) The responsible authority for a law enforcement agency must establish written procedures to ensure
that law enforcement personnel have access to the portable recording system data that are not public
only if authorized in writing by the chief of police, sheriff, or head of the law enforcement agency, or
their designee, to obtain access to the data for a legitimate, specified law enforcement purpose.
Subd. 8. Sharing among agencies.
(a) Portable recording system data that are not public may only be shared with or disseminated to
another law enforcement agency, a government entity, or a federal agency upon meeting the standards
for requesting access to data as provided in subdivision 7.
(b) If data collected by a portable recording system are shared with another state or local law
enforcement agency under this subdivision, the agency that receives the data must comply with all data
classification, destruction, and security requirements of this section.
41
(c) Portable recording system data may not be shared with, disseminated to, sold to, or traded with any
other individual or entity unless explicitly authorized by this section or other applicable law.
Subd. 9. Biennial audit.
(a) A law enforcement agency must maintain records showing the date and time portable recording
system data were collected and the applicable classification of the data. The law enforcement agency
shall arrange for an independent, biennial audit of the data to determine whether data are
appropriately classified according to this section, how the data are used, and whether the data are
destroyed as required under this section, and to verify compliance with subdivisions 7 and 8. If the
governing body with jurisdiction over the budget of the agency determines that the agency is not
complying with this section or other applicable law, the governing body may order additional
independent audits. Data in the records required under this paragraph are classified as provided in
subdivision 2.
(b) The results of the audit are public, except for data that are otherwise classified under law. The
governing body with jurisdiction over the budget of the law enforcement agency shall review the results
of the audit. If the governing body determines that there is a pattern of substantial noncompliance with
this section, the governing body must order that operation of all portable recording systems be
suspended until the governing body has authorized the agency to reinstate their use. An order of
suspension under this paragraph may only be made following review of the results of the audit and
review of the applicable provisions of this chapter, and after providing the agency and members of the
public a reasonable opportunity to respond to the audit's findings in a public meeting.
(c) A report summarizing the results of each audit must be provided to the governing body with
jurisdiction over the budget of the law enforcement agency and to the Legislative Commission on Data
Practices and Personal Data Privacy no later than 60 days following completion of the audit.
Subd. 10. Notification to BCA.
Within ten days of obtaining new surveillance technology that expands the type or scope of surveillance
capability of a portable recording system device beyond video or audio recording, a law enforcement
agency must notify the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension that it has obtained the new surveillance
technology. The notice must include a description of the technology and its surveillance capability and
intended uses. The notices are accessible to the public and must be available on the bureau's Web site.
Subd. 11. Portable recording system vendor.
(a) For purposes of this subdivision, "portable recording system vendor" means a person who is not a
government entity and who provides services for the creation, collection, retention, maintenance,
processing, or dissemination of portable recording system data for a law enforcement agency or other
government entity. By providing these services to a government entity, a vendor is subject to all of the
requirements of this chapter as if it were a government entity.
(b) A portable recording system vendor that stores portable recording system data in the cloud must
protect the data in accordance with the security requirements of the United States Federal Bureau of
Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division Security Policy 5.4 or its successor version.
42
(c) Subject to paragraph (d), in an action against a vendor under section 13.08 for a violation of this
chapter, the vendor is liable for presumed damages of $2,500 or actual damages, whichever is greater,
and reasonable attorney fees.
(d) In an action against a vendor that improperly discloses data made not public by this chapter or any
other statute classifying data as not public, the vendor is liable for presumed damages of $10,000 or
actual damages, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees.
Subd. 12. Penalties for violation.
In addition to any other remedies provided by law, in the case of a willful violation of this section a law
enforcement agency is subject to exemplary damages of not less than twice the minimum, nor more
than twice the maximum allowable for exemplary damages under section 13.08, subdivision 1.
13.08 CIVIL REMEDIES.
Subdivision 1.Action for damages.
Notwithstanding section 466.03, a responsible authority or government entity which violates any
provision of this chapter is liable to a person or representative of a decedent who suffers any damage as
a result of the violation, and the person damaged or a representative in the case of private data on
decedents or confidential data on decedents may bring an action against the responsible authority or
government entity to cover any damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. In the case
of a willful violation, the government entity shall, in addition, be liable to exemplary damages of not less
than $1,000, nor more than $15,000 for each violation. The state is deemed to have waived any
immunity to a cause of action brought under this chapter.
13.09 PENALTIES.
(a) Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this chapter or any rules adopted under this
chapter or whose conduct constitutes the knowing unauthorized acquisition of not public data, as
defined in section 13.055, subdivision 1, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Willful violation of this chapter, including any action subject to a criminal penalty under paragraph
(a), by any public employee constitutes just cause for suspension without pay or dismissal of the public
employee.
Appendix E
43
Retention of Data
Classification Definition Retention
AOA Footage captured while assisting other agency that may contain evidence 90 days
Arrest Custodial Arrest 2 years
DWI Arrest for DWI related offense 2 years
Emer. Veh. Response Response to CFS that does not result in any other classification 30 days
Flee Footage of vehicle refusing to stop 2 years
Interview Interview captured on DVR that does not result in any classification 90 days
Investigative Community contact of interest; ID poss. suspect; comments required 90 days
Narcotics Arrest for a narcotics violation 2 years
Test / Accidental Act. System check at beginning of duty tour / Accidental activation 30 days
Traffic Citation Traffic Stop resulting in citation issued 180 days
Traffic No Citation Traffic stop resulting in no citation issued 30 days
Training Event that could assist in dept. trng - viewable to all personnel 90 days
Appendix E depicts a non inclusive list of retention periods that are reflective of the requirements found
in chapter 13.
44
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699
Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 • www.savmn.com
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is safe and secure.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 3301 Silver
Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Police Department and the Saint Anthony Village City Council will
hold a public hearing to solicit public comments on adoption of a Body Worn Camera policy.
Those persons having an interest in said meeting are encouraged to attend. Public comments will
be accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Questions and comments may be submitted to
the St. Anthony Police Chief at jon.mangseth@savmn.com 612-782-3366 until the date of the
hearing.
The City Council agenda and packet items relating to this notice will be made available prior to
the meeting online at www.savmn.com
Jon Mangseth
St. Anthony Police Chief
45
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
46
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Report Date: October 24, 2017
Massage License Revocation for Solace and Wellness located at 2500 Hwy 88.
REVIEW:
In front of you this evening is a resolution to revoke a massage license for Solace and Wellness located at
2500 Hwy 88. Attached is a letter that was sent to the massage license holder from the City Manager.
The letter includes the pending revocation issues and right to be heard at tonight’s City Council meeting.
As of the time the agenda packet was sent out, the City has not heard from the massage license holder.
Pursuant to the City’s authority, including City Code section 111.350 and the City’s general authority to
protect the morals, health, safety, and general welfare of the public, City Staff recommends that the
Massage Business License for Solace and Wellness be revoked.
47
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
48
49
50
51
52
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 17-072
A RESOLUTION REVOKING THE MASSAGE LICENSE FOR SOLACE AND WELLNESS
LOCATED AT 2500 HWY 88
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony issued a massage license for Solace and Wellness on April 11,
2017; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony has significant evidence that the massage business located at
2500 Hwy 88, suites 218 & 219 is operating in a manner inconsistent with City Code
and state massage licensing standards.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony has notified the massage license holder by US Mail of the
pending revocation and right to be heard at the October 24, 2017 City Council meeting
in accordance with City Code Section 111.350.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village
hereby revokes the massage license for Solace and Wellness located at 2500 Hwy 88.
Adopted this 24th day of October, 2017.
_________________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:___________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Review for Administration: _______________________________________
Mark Casey, City Manager
53
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
54
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: October 24, 2017
Ordinance 2017-03 – Approving Comcast Cable Television Franchise
OVERVIEW:
In front of you this evening is the third and final reading of an ordinance to approve the renewal of the
Comcast cable television franchise along with a resolution approving summary publication of the
ordinance. Minnesota Statute 412.191 (4) allows for summary publications in cases where the
ordinance publications are lengthy, or ordinances include charts or maps.
Following the adoption of the ordinance, and the summary publication, the summary of the ordinance
will be published in the November 1, 2017 edition of the St. Anthony Bulletin, which is the official
newspaper for the City of St. Anthony.
For those interested in viewing the proposed ordinance please contact Nicole Miller, City Clerk
at nicole.miler@savmn.com or 612-782-3313.
55
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
56
1
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 17-073
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE
2017-03
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Anthony has adopted the above referenced
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing maps or charts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the
public of the intent of Ordinance 2017-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: the following summary of Ordinance 2017-03
shall be published in the official paper in lieu of the entire ordinance.
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
Ordinance 2017-03
An Ordinance Approving Comcast Franchise Agreement
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO COMCAST OF MINNESOTA, INC.,
D/B/A COMCAST TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY; SETTING FORTH
CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR
REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE, IF ANY, AND
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS HEREIN;
The City Council of the City of St. Anthony ordains:
STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE
The City intends, by the adoption of this Franchise, to bring about the further development of a
Cable System and the continued operation of it. Such development can contribute significantly
to the communication needs and desires of the residents and citizens of the City and the public
generally. Further, the City may achieve better utilization and improvement of public services
and enhanced economic development with the development and operation of a Cable
Communication System.
Adoption of this Franchise is, in the judgment of the Council, in the best interests of the City and
its residents.
57
2
The specific terms and conditions of the Franchise Ordinance, Sections 1 to 14, and Exhibits are
available for review at City Hall, St. Anthony City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony,
MN 55418.
Adopted this 24th day of October, 2017.
_________________________________
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Reviewed for administration: _________________________________
Mark Casey, City Manager
58
Date Type Staff Present
October 30 Special
5:30 p.m.
Joint Meeting with School Board City Council
City Manager
October 30 Special
7:00 p.m.Work Session City Council
City Manager
November 14 Regular
1st Reading Water, Sewer, Stormwater & 2018 Fee Schedule
Canvassing Board-Municipal Election
1st Reading Small Cell Wireless Ordinance
City Council
City Manager
November 28 Regular
Planning Commission items from October
Fire Prevention Poster Winners
2018 Street Project Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids
2nd Reading Water, Sewer, Stormwater & 2018 Fee Schedule
2nd Reading Small Cell Wireless Ordinance
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
City Engineer
December 4 Special
7:00 p.m.Work Session - Commission Interviews City Council
City Manager
December 12 Regular
Planning Commission items from November
Appoint Parks and Planning Commissioners and Chair/Vice Chairs
Setting Salary of City Manager
Authorizing Transfers & Closing of Specified Funds
Setting the 2018 City & HRA Budgets and Final Property Tax Levy -Public Hearing
Final Reading Water, Sewer, Stormwater & 2018 Fee Schedule
Final Reading Small Cell Wireless Ordinance
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
December 26 Regular
City Council
City Manager
January 9 Regular
Housekeeping Resolutions
Resolution for the Street Improvement Bond Reimbursement
Quarterly Donations & Grants
City Council
City Manager
January 23 Regular
2018 Parks Commission Work Plan- (motion only)
Presentation-Northeast Youth and Family Services
Northeast Youth and Family Services Agreement
2018 Street Project Call for Hearing on Improvements, Call for Hearing on Assessments,
Order Preparation of Assessments
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
2018
2017
59
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
February 13 Regular Planning Commission items from January
Ordinance Setting Water & Sewer Rates for 2018 - 1st Reading
City Council
City Manager
February 27 Regular
Ordinance Setting Water & Sewer Rates for 2018 - 2nd Reading
2018 Street Project Public Hearing, Order Improvements, Adopt & Confirm Assessments,
Award Contract for Construction, Call for Sale of GO Bonds
Administration Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
March 13 Regular
Planning Commission Items from February
Liquor Annual Report
Fire Annual Report
Liquor License Renewals
GreenCorp Member application-resolution
Ordinance Setting Water & Sewer Rates for 2018 - Final Reading
2018 Planning Commission Work Plan-(motion only)
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
Liquor Op Manager
March 27 Regular
2018 Street Project Call for Sale of Bonds
Public Works Annual Report
Police Annual Report
Order Feasibility Report for 2019 Street Project
City Council
City Manager
Public Works Director
Police Dept
City Engineer
April 10 Regular Planning Commission Items from March
Quarterly Donations & Grants
City Council
City Manager
April 24 Regular
Arbor Day Proclamation
1st Quarter Goals Update
Spirit of St. Anthony Award
2018 Street Project Bond Sale and Award of Bonds
City Council
City Manager
May 8 Regular
Planning Commission items from April
Public Hearing-Budget Calendar
Finance Annual Report
Chamber of the Year and Business of the Year
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
May __Special
5:00 p.m.Tour of the City City Council
City Manager
May 22 Regular
Salo Park Concert Series
Insurance Renewal
Tort Limits - Consent
Approval of 2019 Street & Utility Recon Feasibility Study & Order Final Plans and Specs
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
60
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
June 12 Regular Planning Commission Items from May City Council
City Manager
June 26 Regular Audit Presentation City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
July 10 Regular
Planning Commission items from June
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Quarterly Goals Update
City Council
City Manager
July 24 Regular
Night to Unite Presentation
Night to Unite Proclamation
Liquor Operations Mid Year Report
VillageFest Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Police Chief
Liquor Op Mgr
August 14 Regular
7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission items from July
SANB #282 Presentation
City Council
City Manager
August 28 Regular Budget Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
September 11 Regular
Planning Commission items from August
Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire
2019 Preliminary Operating Budget and Levy-Public Hearing
Kiwanis Peanut Day
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
September 25 Regular Fire Prevention Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
October 9 Regular
Planning Commission items from September
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts-Consent Agenda
Certification of Delinquent Waste Hauler Accounts-Consent Agenda
City Council
City Manager
October 23 Regular City Council
City Manager
61