Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC WORKSESSION PACKET 08032020If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. The meeting can be viewed live via cable channel 16 in the North Suburbs or the web broadcast at https://www.ctvnorthsuburbs.org/live-tv/channel-15/. Due to health concerns and limited seating, we encourage use of virtual option by using this link: http://www.savmn.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=1179 There is also a dial-in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Following guidance from state health officials, some City Council Members may choose to participate in upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021. Work Session Agenda Monday, August 3, 2020 5:30 p.m. 1. Housing Data. Mark Casey, City Manager presenting 2. Dangerous Dog Ordinance. Mark Casey, City Manager presenting 3. St. Anthony Family Services Collaborative Proposal. Mark Casey, City Manager presenting 4. Masks. Mark Casey, City Manager presenting 5. Public Safety Commission. Mark Casey, City Manager presenting 6. Future Work Session Dates, Times and Agenda Items. Mark Casey, City Manager presenting 7. Adjournment City of St. Anthony CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Minutes July 7, 2020 Present: Mayor & Council Randy Stille, Mayor; Bernard Walker, Councilmember; Thomas Randle, Councilmember; Wendy Webster, Councilmember and Jan Jenson, Councilmember. Absent: None Staff: Mark Casey, City Manager, Charlie Yunker, Assistant to the City Manager and Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director. Call to Order: Mayor Stille called the Work Session to order at 5:00 p.m. 2021 Preliminary Budget and Levy: Staff presented the 2021 preliminary budget & levy that would maintain present city services. Jenson stated he was comfortable with 2% wage increase. In regards to Webster’s question about decrease in excess TIF, staff explained on how excess TIF is generated. Excess TIF is anticipated to be less than 2020. In response to Stille’s question on permits revenue not higher, staff stated the city budgeted conservatively to keep levy flat. Additional revenue would go towards the fund balance. In response to Stille’s question on how is 2020 tracking, staff stated ok so far and tax collection remains consistent. In response to Jenson’s question on how much CARES Act does SAV get, staff stated approximately $680,000 in reimbursable. Not in budget because it is intended for extra costs. In response to Randle’s question on ending the fuel contract with New Brighton, staff stated they are building their own fueling station and ending the contract that will not bring in $3,000 in revenue. In response to Randle’s question on why we retired dog-licensing fees, staff stated that this was done away with several years ago as part of a Hamline University study concluded not worth the work anymore. Stille stated the COLA survey average was 2.48% Public Safety Commission: Staff stated they believe the focus of a public safety commission is not a civilian oversight commission of the police department, but a vehicle for engagement on Police, Fire, and Emergency Management. Randle stated not being comfortable moving forward in current environment. He is confident in leadership, and comfortable in the police department’s direction with collaborative reform. Walker stated it is a good time for this commission. Could build trust with community. Could be safeguard for the future. In response to Walker’s question on the pros and cons, staff stated a police oversight commission is not the best model to handle personnel issues, etc. In response to Walker’s question on what would be power of the commission be, staff believes in engaging residents, but concern is with maintaining authority at elected Council level and not shifted to appointed residents. System is in place already for oversight. Vision would be to educate, inform and engage. Randle stated that in talking with residents, no appetite for the commission. Concerned with what is being discussed on social media. Walker stated if commission only advises, residents do not have influence. Could be a mixture of residents, council, staff, etc. to collectively make decisions. Good to have details on scope. Webster stated that it seems staff is looking to engage in deeper ways, which carries more weight. In response to Webster’s question if staff has found an applicable model, staff stated not yet, but preliminary conversations with DOJ consultants, for $10-$15k they could research and present recommendation. Webster stated it was worth exploring. Sounds like recommendations would go to both Council and staff. Staff stated this would be similar to other commissions in this one could explore ideas and help inform service delivery, but appropriately maintain representative government. Walker expressed concerns it becomes a “paper tiger” that cannot accomplish things. Stille stated it was innovative of staff to use commission as vehicles for vetting ideas. If done right, in favor. Stille stated we should revisit at a future work session to allow time for more internal research. Mayor & Council Responses to Media and Community Inquiries: Staff recommend working with City Manager and staff on media inquiries. Mayor and council should respond on own behalf and not as council. It was reminded to do not prejudge land use items. Walker stated it is important to reflect before responding whenever possible. Randle stated that maybe best not to respond on social media. Walker stated he usually does not respond to received emails from the public to avoid back and forth. Stille stated that public meetings are the place to have discussion and make decisions. Council Meetings – Live or Zoom: Staff stated that Plexiglas dividers are up at the dias. Staff inquired on the desire on City Council and Work Session meetings going forward. Webster stated she is open to meeting in person with masks. Nice to keep hybrid if members need to quarantine. Walker stated he favors the hybrid approach. Jenson stated he favors in person with disinfecting procedures and keep hybrid. Randle stated he is ok coming to chambers. Stille stated he is comfortable being in chambers if rest are. By consensus of the mayor and council is to continue with the hybrid of providing both in-person and virtual options. Organized Collection: Staff presented a memo. By consensus of the mayor and council, staff was directed to begin the RFP process. Good Friday & Columbus Day: Staff presented a memo. By consensus of the mayor and council staff was directed to not formally recognize Good Friday and staff would can take a floating holiday. Also, not formally recognizing Columbus Day and formally recognizing Juneteenth. Affordable Housing: This was carried over from the June 1, 2020 City Council Work Session. The Dougherty Report, as referenced at the June 1st Work Session was presented. Stille stated the issues are nationwide. Studies in the past shown that TIF is City’s only tool. SAV has done well in production. City has limited staff for focusing on affordable housing. Randle and Jenson stated we should let current projects proceed and reassess from there. Webster inquired of if data on p.1 of the Dougherty Report be compiled for SAV? Webster stated that it seems like affordable generated has been focused on seniors. Overlay with census data to see if TIF provided matches population. A goal would be to set future goals on housing for targeted populations, then possibly focus assistance on where the need is. Also, see what populations have been served by the TIF assistance given? Stille stated that market rate units tend to open up NOAH units down the line. Jenson stated that it is not a desire for city to lead development. By consensus of the mayor and council, staff was directed to have the City Planner attend the next Work Session so a study may be discussed. Future Work Session Dates: In regards to rescheduling the Zoom meeting with Congresswoman Omar, by consensus of the mayor and council to pick a date Monday through Thursday at 5:30 pm and see who is able to attend. By consensus of the mayor and council, the next Work Session is scheduled for Monday, August 3, 2020 at 5:30 pm with the following topics: Affordable Housing with City Planner attending and Masks. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Mark Casey, City Manager. THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION TO: Mark Casey, City Manager City of St. Anthony FROM: Jay Lindgren Paul Beck DATE: 28 July 2020 RE: Review of Dangerous Dog Ordinance I. Background At its July 14, 2020 meeting, the City Council heard an appeal of a dangerous dog designation made pursuant to City Code § 91.36. As part of the appeal, the dog owner/resident asked the City Council to conduct a review of § 91.36, asking that the ordinance be repealed or amended because it is inconsistent with state statute and the practice of other metro area communities. The Council upheld the dangerous dog designation under the current § 91.36, but stayed enforcement of the mandatory prohibition on dangerous dogs pending its review of the ordinance. This Memorandum summarizes the current St. Anthony ordinance, the detailed state statutory scheme surrounding the designation and regulation of dangerous dogs, and a sample of ordinances from other metro area communities. Ultimately, we recommend that the City ordinances be amended to adopt the state statutory scheme by reference and repeal the prohibition on dangerous dogs in § 91.36. Additionally, we recommend that the Council consider adopting additional clarifying language to fill in the gaps in the state statute, including: regulation of potentially dangerous dogs, clarifying the roles of city staff in designations and appeals, and specifying the annual registration fee for dangerous dogs. A redline of the current ordinance reflecting our recommended changes is enclosed with this Memorandum. II. Current St. Anthony Ordinance St. Anthony city ordinance § 91.36 provides “[n]o person may keep on their premises, or on premises occupied by them, nor permit to run at large in the city, any dog or other domesticated animal of a ferocious or vicious character, habit, or disposition as defined by M.S. § 347.50(2).” The referenced state statute is the definition of “dangerous dog,” as discussed in Section III.A of this Memorandum. Section 91.36 further provides that “[a]ny animal which is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid, or exposed to rabies may be impounded,” and that if the animal cannot be impounded without serious risk to the person seeking to impound it, it may be killed immediately by a police officer or other designated person. The City Code provides an aggrieved owner with the opportunity to appeal a dangerous dog designation to the City Council within 14 days of the designation. St. Anthony Mun. Code § 91.44. Additionally, the ordinance provides for an appeal of a designation of a potentially dangerous dog by appointment with the Chief of Police or his/her designee. 2 City ordinance § 91.45 provides that the animal control authority shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if: (A) The owner does not appeal the Police Chief’s order within the appeal period. (B) The dog is not destroyed or permanently removed from the city within 5 calendar days after the City Council has denied an appeal. The ordinance provides that “[p]olice officers or others designated by the City Manager will enforce” the ordinance. St. Anthony Mun. Code § 91.39. It further provides that the animal control authority shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if (1) the appeal period for the designation has passed, or (2) the dog is not destroyed or permanently removed within five calendar days after the City Council has denied an appeal. St. Anthony Mun. Code § 91.45. The St. Anthony dangerous dog ordinance differs from the state dangerous dogs statute and other city ordinances that we reviewed in that it prohibits any keeping of dangerous dogs in the city, rather than allowing them to be kept under strict requirements relating to registration, housing, insurance, and sterilization. To this end, the St. Anthony ordinance provides for the immediate seizure of any dangerous dog if the owner does not appeal the designation, or within five days if the owner’s appeal is denied. As discussed below, the state law provides for immediate seizure of dangerous dogs in some circumstances, but allows them to be present in the jurisdiction if properly registered and kept under the law. III. State Dangerous Dogs Law Minn. Stat. §§ 345.50-565 sets forth a detailed framework for designating and regulating dangerous dogs in Minnesota. Significantly, the statute requires that “Sections 347.50 to 347.56 must be enforced by animal control authorities or law enforcement agencies, whether or not these sections have been adopted into local ordinance.” (Emphasis added). A. Definition of Dangerous Dog State law defines a “dangerous dog” as a dog that: 1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or (3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 2. There are exemptions from this definition for law enforcement dogs used for police work, Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 4, and a dog cannot be designated as dangerous if the threat or injury it caused was to a person who was trespassing, committing a crime, or provoking or tormenting the dog. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 5. A “potentially dangerous dog” is any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals 3 Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 3. B. Designation and Right to Hearing The state statute does not specify precisely which individuals within the jurisdiction may designate a dog as dangerous or potentially dangerous. However, the authority declaring a dog as dangerous must provide the owner with notice and the opportunity for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer. Minn. Stat. § 347.541. The statute sets forth detailed requirements for the notice that is sent to the owner. See Minn. Stat. § 347.541, subd. 3. The hearing officer must be an impartial employee of the local government or an impartial person retained to conduct the hearing. Minn. Stat. § 347.541, subd. 4. Note that these notice and hearing requirements in the statute only apply to dangerous dog designations, not to designations of potentially dangerous dogs. C. General Requirements for Dangerous Dogs The statute requires an owner of a dog designated as a dangerous dog to keep the dog in a proper enclosure 1 while on the owner’s property. If outside the proper enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(a). If the owner rents the property where the dog will reside, the owner must disclose the designation to the property owner when entering into or renewing the lease. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(e). Additionally, dangerous dogs must be sterilized at the owner’s expense within 30 days of their designation, or if the owner fails to do so, the authority may seize the dog and sterilize it at the owner’s expense. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(d). As discussed below, all dangerous dogs must be annually registered in the applicable jurisdiction and have a tag affixed to their collar reflecting their dangerous dog registration. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, sub. 1, 7. D. Registration of Dangerous Dogs State law requires all dangerous dogs to be registered with the municipal or county authority that has responsibility for animal control in the jurisdiction (the “animal control authority”). Minn. Stat. §§ 347.51, subd. 1; 347.52(b). To obtain a registration, the owner must present sufficient evidence that: (1) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog on the premises, as well as a warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property; (2) the owner has obtained a surety bond or liability insurance policy of at least $300,000, payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog; (3) the owner has paid an annual fee of not more than $500,2 in addition to any regular dog licensing fees; and (4) the owner has had a microchip implanted in the dangerous dog and provided the details to the authority. 1 “Proper enclosure” means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting. Minn. Stat. § 347.50, Subd. 4. 2 The statute expressly authorizes local jurisdictions to charge owners of dangerous dogs an annual fee in addition to any regular dog licensing fees. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 3. 4 Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2. The animal control authority is required to provide the owner with a warning symbol to warn children that there is a dangerous dog on the premises. The warning symbol can be obtained from the state, and the animal control authority may charge the applicant a fee to cover its costs of obtaining the warning symbol. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2a. Beginning six months after a dog is designated as a dangerous dog, the owner may request an annual review of the designation. If the animal control authority determines the owner presented sufficient evidence that the dog’s behavior has changed due to the dog’s age, neutering, environment, training, or other factors, the authority may rescind the designation. Minn. Stat. § 347.52, subd. 3a. The owner must renew the registration of the dog annually until the dog is deceased, and if it is removed from the jurisdiction, the dog must be registered as a dangerous dog in the new jurisdiction. Minn. Stat. § 347.52(b). The owner must notify the animal control authority in writing within 30 days if the dog dies or is transferred to another jurisdiction. E. Seizure and Destruction of Dangerous Dogs State law requires the animal control authority to immediately seize any dangerous dog if the dog has not been validly registered and insured within 14 days of the designation; the dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure or is not properly restrained when outside of the enclosure; or the dog is not sterilized within 30 days. Minn. Stat. § 347.54, subd. 1. A dog seized by the animal control authority may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of boarding fees and presentation of proof that that the requirements are met. Minn. Stat. § 347.54, subd. 2. A dog that is not claimed with seven days may be disposed of by the animal control authority in a manner permitted by law, and the owner is liable for the costs of confining and disposing of the dog. Id. In certain extreme circumstances, the state statute authorizes any dog to be destroyed under an abbreviated process, for example if a dog inflicted substantial bodily harm without provocation, or if it bit one person multiple times or multiple people in the same attack without provocation. Minn. Stat. § 347.56, subd. 1. In these circumstances, the animal control authority must still give the owner the opportunity to have a hearing before destroying the dog. Minn. Stat. § 347.56, subd. 2. F. Penalties and Restrictions on Ownership Violations of the dangerous dog statute are a misdemeanor, including failure to renew the registration of dangerous dog, failure to comply with all registration and care requirements, failure to notify the animal control authority on the sale or transfer of the dangerous dog, and failure to disclose ownership of a dangerous dog to a landlord. Minn. Stat. § 347.55. State law also prohibits individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes from owning any dog, including those who have been convicted of: three or more violations of the dangerous dog statute; a gross misdemeanor for allowing a dangerous dog to commit additional harm; or second degree manslaughter for negligently allowing a vicious animal to run free. Minn. Stat. § 347.542. IV. Analysis of Other City Ordinances The residents who appealed the dangerous dog ordinance to the City Council claimed to have reviewed 25 city ordinances in the metro area and could not find one that was similar to the St. Anthony dangerous dog ordinance. We reviewed several ordinances for surrounding cities 5 and did not find a similar prohibition on dangerous dogs as in § 91.36. Below we summarize the approach taken by a handful of neighboring cities. A. Roseville The City of Roseville has essentially written much of the state statute into its ordinances, including the definitions, registration requirement, ownership requirements, and exemptions. However, the Roseville ordinance differs from the state law in a handful of respects. For example, while the state statute does not provide for any regulation of potentially dangerous dogs, the Roseville ordinance requires potentially dangerous dogs to be kept in a proper enclosure and muzzled when outside of the enclosure and requires the owner to microchip the potentially dangerous dog and provide proof of current vaccinations. Additionally, the owner of a potentially dangerous dog may be required to complete animal obedience classes. Roseville City Code § 501.16(C)(1). The Roseville ordinance states that the determination of whether an animal is “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” shall be made by the Chief of Police or his or her designee, and that an appeal of such a designation must be held before an impartial hearing officer. Roseville City Code § 501.16(E), (G). The hearing officer is “an impartial employee appointed by the City, or an impartial person retained by the City.” Roseville City Code § 501.16(A). B. New Brighton The New Brighton dangerous dog ordinance similarly writes much of the state statute into its ordinance verbatim, but it also adopts the state dangerous dog statute by reference. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(1). The ordinance specifies that a “public safety officer or Animal Control Officer may declare a dog to be dangerous or potentially dangerous.” New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(2). Additionally, the ordinance details the procedure for a hearing on a designation before an impartial hearing officer, with the opportunity to appeal to the City Council. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-144(6), (8). Significantly, the ordinance applies the same registration requirements to potentially dangerous dogs as to dangerous dogs (proper enclosure, annual fee, microchip, warning sign, tags), except for the surety bond/insurance requirement, which only applies to dangerous dogs. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-146. Additionally, both potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs must be sterilized at the owners expense, and the owner must notify the city upon the death or transfer of the dog. New Brighton Mun. Code § 6-147. C. Edina The Edina ordinance adopts the state statute by reference and provides a handful of additional clarifying provisions. Edina Mun. Code § 8-298. First, the ordinance provides that the animal control officer has authority to declare a dog to be potentially dangerous, and may require that such dogs “be confined or restrained when on the owner’s property and restrained and muzzled when not on the owner’s property.” Edina Mun. Code § 8-299. Second, the ordinance provides that the Police Chief has authority to designate a dangerous dog, which may be appealed to the city council, and specifies the annual registration fee for a dangerous dog is $100. Edina Mun. Code § 8-300. Third, the ordinance provides that an appeal must be filed within 10 days of the designation (whether it is a “potentially dangerous” or “dangerous” designation), and the council must hear the appeal within 30 days. Edina Mun. Code § 8-301. D. St. Louis Park The St. Louis Park dangerous dog ordinance generally mirrors the state statute, but does not expressly adopt it by reference and uses slightly different language in some cases. The ordinance specifies that an Animal Control Officer designates dangerous dogs, and it sets 6 forth a hearing procedure in which the City Manager or designee is the impartial hearing officer. St. Louis Park Mun. Code § 4-88(a), (g). The ordinance also provides for notice and a hearing of a designation of a potentially dangerous dog, and requires owners of potentially dangerous dogs to register and license the dog as potentially dangerous and have a microchip implanted. St. Louis Park Mun. Code § 4-89(b)-(c). The applicable fees are not specified. E. Plymouth The Plymouth ordinance does not adopt the entire state statute by reference like Edina, but it does refer to provisions of the state law repeatedly. The Plymouth ordinance expressly provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing for a “potentially dangerous” designation, which is not provided for in the state law. Plymouth Mun. Code § 915.25, subd. 2. The ordinance does not, however, impose any registration or other restrictions on potentially dangerous dogs. V. Analysis and Recommendations A. Potential Liability In certain extreme circumstances, a City can be held liable for failure to enforce its dangerous dogs ordinance. In Hansen v. City of St. Paul, 214 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1974), St. Paul was found liable for injuries caused by two dogs that had bitten seven other people in the previous 13 months and were known to city officials to be vicious and prone to unprovoked attacks on sidewalk pedestrians. The court held that this was a narrow extension of the city’s common- law duty to maintain its streets and sidewalks, when (1) vicious dogs prowl the public sidewalks, (2) the appropriate municipal officials have knowledge, (3) the officials know that the owner is failing in its duty to restrain, and (4) confinement and impoundment are reasonably achievable. While the Supreme Court made sure to specify that it was only narrowly expanding liability to this extreme situation, this case does demonstrate that cities can be held liable for failure to properly regulate dangerous dogs when the city is on notice. Thus it is important that the City have an ordinance that is enforceable and enforced. B. Preemption of Existing Ordinance The residents that requested this review argued that City Code § 91.36 conflicts with the state dangerous dog statute and is thus preempted. The state law expressly provides local jurisdictions with broad authority to regulate dangerous dogs: Any statutory or home rule charter city, or any county, may regulate potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs. Except as provided in section 347.51, subdivision 8, nothing in sections 347.50 to 347.565 limits any restrictions that the local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs. Minn. Stat. § 347.53. The only limitation on this authority, referenced in the above provision, provides: A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void. Thus the only restriction on local regulations of dangerous dogs under the state law is that the local jurisdiction cannot discriminate by breed of dog. Other than this limitation, the state law 7 does not “limit[] any restrictions that the local jurisdiction[] may place on owners of potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs.” While we are not aware that it has even been considered by a court, presumably this broad grant of local authority would include the ability to ban dangerous dogs altogether. However, while the City’s flat prohibition on dangerous dogs is likely not preempted by the state law, it could be argued that by not creating and enforcing a registration program for dangerous dogs, the City is violating Minn. Stat. § 347.565, which provides that the state dangerous dogs statute “must be enforced by animal control authorities or law enforcement agencies, whether or not these sections have been adopted into local ordinance.” (Emphasis added). Thus we recommend that the City adopt the state statutory scheme in lieu of the flat prohibition, with some clarifications as outlined below. C. Recommended Amendments to Ordinance Given the above considerations, we recommend amending the City ordinance as follows: 1. Adopt the state dangerous dogs statute by reference. Given that the City is required to enforce the state statute whether it adopts it by reference or not, we believe there is value in pointing to this statute so that residents are aware that it applies. In addition to adopting the state law by reference, the Council may want to amend the ordinance to include many or all of the provisions of the state statute into the ordinance. This is not necessary from a legal perspective by may assist residents in understanding the law if they do not need to turn to a different statute book. 2. Repeal the ban on dangerous dogs in § 91.36. The prohibition on dangerous dogs in current § 91.36, while perhaps not preempted by the state law, is somewhat inconsistent with it and other ordinances in the metro area, which allow for the keeping of dangerous dogs subject to strict registration and handling requirements. 3. Clearly specify which city employees can designate a dog as dangerous or potentially dangerous. The state law is unclear on this point, and many of the better city ordinances specify which employees can make each of these designations (e.g. police officers, animal control officers, City Manager), particularly if there is no animal control officer. 4. Repeal current § 91.45. This ordinance providing for confiscation of dangerous dogs is no longer applicable if the prohibition in § 91.36 is repealed, and the state law provides for confiscation of dangerous dogs if the registration and other requirements are not met. 5. Specify the annual fee for registering a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog. Alternatively, the ordinance could authorize the City Manager or another City employee to determine the amount of the fee. 6. Enact registration and other regulations on potentially dangerous dogs, similar to the restrictions in place for dangerous dogs. As discussed above, many cities require potentially dangerous dogs to be registered, sterilized, microchipped, and kept in proper enclosures, the same as dangerous dogs. Some cities only require them to be registered and microchipped. If the Council were to impose these requirements, it should also amend the ordinance to put in place clear notice and hearing provisions for designations of “potentially dangerous” dogs. Our recommended amendments to the ordinance are attached to this Memorandum in redline. 20 St. Anthony - General Regulations 2009 S-1 ANIMAL CONTROL § 91.35 DESTRUCTION OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS PROHIBITED. No person may kill or destroy any dog or other domesticated animal found running at large within the city, except as authorized under this subchapter. (1993 Code, § 1205.01) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 91.36 DANGEROUS OR DISEASED ANIMALS. (A) Incorporation by Reference. No person may keep on their premises, or on premises occupied by them, nor permit to run at large in the city, any dog or other domesticated animal of a ferocious or vicious character, habit, or disposition as defined by M.S. § 347.50(2). Any animal which is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid, or exposed to rabies may be impounded. If the animal cannot be impounded without serious risk to the person attempting to impound the animal, it may be killed immediately by a police officer or other person designated by the Manager.Minnesota Statutes §§ 347.50 through 347.565 are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted as part of this chapter. Incorporation of said statutes shall not be a release by the city of any powers or authority which it has without such incorporation. (B) Designation. Police officers or others designated by the City Manager may declare a dog to be a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog as defined by M.S. § 347.50. If a dog is declared a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog, a notice shall be delivered or mailed to the owner, informing the owner of the designation, the basis for the designation, the procedures for appealing the designation as set forth in Section 91.44, and the result of a failure to contest the designation as set forth in Section 91.42. (C) Effect of Potentially Dangerous Designation. The registration requirements and other requirements applicable to dangerous dogs in M.S. §§ 347.51, 347.515, and 347.52 shall also apply to potentially dangerous dogs, provided that the owner of a potentially dangerous dog shall not be required to obtain a surety bond or liability insurance policy pursuant to M.S. § 347.51(2)(2) in order to obtain a certificate of registration. Violations of M.S. §§ 347.51, 347.515, or 347.52 with respect to potentially dangerous dogs are subject to the penalties provided in M.S. §§ 347.54, 347.541, and 347.55. Beginning six months after a dog is declared a potentially dangerous dog, an owner may request annually that the animal control authority review the designation. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's behavior has changed due to the dog's age, neutering, environment, completion of obedience training that includes modification of aggressive behavior, or other factors. If the animal control authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog's behavior has changed, the authority may rescind the designation. (D) Registration Fee. The annual fee to obtain a certificate of registration for a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog shall be [$XXX/determined by the City Manager]. (1993 Code, § 1205.02) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99 Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Animals 21 2009 S-1 § 91.37 RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED. No owner or keeper of any dog or other domesticated animal may permit the animal to be at large and must at all times keep the animal under physical restraint. An animal is deemed “at large” whenever it is off the property of the owner or keeper and not under physical restraint. (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 91.38 DROPPINGS. It is the responsibility of the owner, keeper, or other person in control of an animal to clean up any droppings of the animal and to dispose of the droppings in a sanitary manner. (1993 Code, § 1205.04) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 91.39 ENFORCEMENT AND IMPOUNDING. Police officers or others designated by the City Manager will enforce the provisions of this subchapter and the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 through 347.565 incorporated herein. A violation of the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 through 347.565 shall also be a violation of this subchapter. Any person with authority to enforce this subchapter, and will impound animals kept or running at large contrary to this subchapter, and a.Any animal which is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid, or exposed to rabies may be impounded. If the animal cannot be impounded without serious risk to the person attempting to impound the animal, it may be killed immediately by a police officer or other person designated by the City Manager. (1993 Code, § 1205.05) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) 22 St. Anthony - General Regulations 2009 S-1 § 91.40 RECLAIMING ANIMALS. (A) Notice. When an animal is impounded, the keeper of the pound will provide the police with a description of the animal impounded within 24 hours of the impoundment. The keeper must make a reasonable effort to determine whether a license for the animal has been issued by the city or any adjoining city, and to ascertain the name and address of the person to whom the license was issued. If the license was issued during the preceding license year, then before the animal may be disposed of, by sale or otherwise, the keeper of the pound must give notice to the license holder not less than 24 hours before any disposal of the animal. If the license holder gives notice to the keeper of intent to reclaim the animal, the animal must be kept available for reclaiming for 24 hours after receipt of that notice. (B) Payment of fees. The city may employ or contract with a person or organization for capturing and impounding animals not properly licensed, collared, and tagged, and all other domesticated animals kept in violation of this subchapter. All animals impounded will be kept with kind treatment and sufficient food and water for their comfort for at least 5 regular business days, unless sooner reclaimed by their owners. A dog or other domesticated animal may be reclaimed upon payment by the license holder or owner of the impounding fee set forth in Chapter 33, plus the pound fee and cost of the food and care at the rates established between the pound and the city, plus any medical costs reasonably incurred while the animal was impounded. For each subsequent violation for the same animal, the impounding fee will be double the amount of the previous impounding fee. If an animal which is required to be licensed is unlicensed, the regular license fee must be paid in addition to the foregoing amounts. (1993 Code, § 1205.06) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) § 91.41 QUARANTINE. If a dog or other animal within the city bites any person or is reported as diseased, the police may require that the animal be impounded at the designated pound for observation for sufficient time to determine whether it is diseased. The animal may not be killed or reclaimed and returned to the owner until ordered by the police. Any animal impounded for having bitten a person, which is subsequently released by the police, may be reclaimed by its owner upon payment of the impounding fee, cost of food and care, and any medical costs incurred while impounded. (1993 Code, § 1205.07) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) § 91.42 DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS. At the expiration of at least 7 full calendar days, including 5 full regular business days from the time any animal is impounded, except in the case of an animal ordered held in quarantine for a longer period by the police, if the animal has not been reclaimed and the fees paid under § 91.40(B), the keeper of the pound may cause the animal to be humanely killed. Alternatively, the keeper may sell the animal, as abandoned and unclaimed by the owner, to any person upon payment of a sum of money not less than Animals 23 2009 S-1 the license fee and not more than the amount the owner would have to pay to reclaim the dog. Notwithstanding the 5-day limitation, if an animal has not been disposed of, it may be reclaimed upon payment of the amounts provided for in § 91.40(B). For purposes of this section and § 91.40, REGULAR BUSINESS DAY means a day on which the establishment having custody of an animal is open to the public for not less than 4 consecutive hours between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (1993 Code, § 1205.08) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) § 91.43 ACCOUNTING OF ANIMALS. The keeper of the place of impounding must keep an accurate account of all animals impounded, and of all animals killed, sold, or released, together with a record of all moneys received and costs expended. The information will be reported at regular intervals to the city as required by the city. (1993 Code, § 1205.09) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) § 91.44 APPEALS. (A) Any owner who feels aggrieved by a dangerous dog notice or order of the Chief of Police, or the Chief’s designee may request a hearing before the City Council, which serves as the city’s Hearing Officer, by filing an appeal in writing with the Chief of Police within 14 days after receipt of the notice or order. Upon the filing of such appeal, no further action shall be taken by the city until the matter has been decided by the City Council and all appeals or appeal opportunities have been exhausted. The owner may appear with or without legal counsel and present evidence in opposition to the notice or order. Following the appeals hearing, the City Council shall make a determination of facts and shall, based upon such determination, affirm, repeal, or modify the Police Chief’s notice or order. The City Council shall also establish a date for compliance with the order as affirmed or modified, which date shall be not less than five 5 days thereafter, in compliance with M.S. § 347.541. (B) By appointment, the Chief of Police or his or her designee will hear appeals on potentially dangerous dogs. (Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) § 91.45 CONFISCATION. The animal control authority having jurisdiction shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if: (A) The owner does not appeal the Police Chief’s order within the appeal period. (B) The dog is not destroyed or permanently removed from the city within 5 calendar days after the City Council has denied an appeal. (Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) 24 St. Anthony - General Regulations 2009 S-1 § 91.46 REPORT OF DOG BITE. Any person knowing of a human being bitten by a dog shall immediately notify the Police Department and the dog shall then be confined and kept under observation for a period of 10 days before being disposed of, if necessary. (Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) ANIMALS PROHIBITED AS NUISANCES § 91.55 HABITUAL BARKING. (A) It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks or cries. Habitual barking shall be defined as barking for repeated intervals of at least 5 minutes with less than 1 minute of interruption. The barking must also be audible off of the owner’s or caretaker’s premises. (B) The animal control officer or police officer shall not enter the property of the owner of an animal described in this section unless the officer has first obtained the permission of the owner to do so or has obtained a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, as provided for in § 10.20, to search for and seize the animal. Penalty, see § 10.99 § 91.56 KEEPING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. No person may keep swine, cattle, horses, goats, or more than 2 dogs or 3 dogs allowed under § 91.01 through 91.05 or fowl, within the city nearer than 500 feet to any human habitation or platted land, without approval of the City Council. The City Council may, before approving or denying any request for approval, request a report from the Health Officer concerning the effect on public health. (1993 Code, § 1210.02) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 91.57 INTERFERENCE WITH CITY PERSONNEL. No person may in any manner molest, hinder, or interfere with any person employed by the city to capture and impound dogs or other animals while the person is within the course and scope of employment. (1993 Code, § 1210.03) Penalty, see § 10.99 - 1 MARIUS MASSIE PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES For Saint Anthony-New Brighton School District OVERVIEW MARIUS MASSIE (the “Consultant”) is pleased to submit this proposal for services to support Saint Anthony-New Brighton School District (the “District”) in achieving its goals for reducing stakeholder fractures, general conflict resolution, and community restoration and healing. Recent e vents have made such activities even more urgent and Consultant has been contacted due to his prior relationship and training conducted with District. These activities align with the District’s strategic objective to commit to the success of all learners by engaging and leveraging the strength of its community. Consultant will employ a variety of methods to meet this need.  CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND RELATIONSHIP REPAIR: Consultant will utilize proprietary methods to facilitate use of a community-wide protocol for individual and group conflict resolution. A core group of District-selected leaders will serve as a launch cohort. This initial cohort will include ample representation of all stakeholder groups. This cohort is tasked with working with Consultant to establish unity through the creation of shared commitments that will govern future stakeholder interactions. Later, this cohort will serve hopefully in various degrees as outreach to “spread” and advocate practice of relationship repair strategies obtained creating a “viral” positive influence. Outreach leaders serve voluntarily and receive additional training and stipends.  TRAIN THE COACH: Selected outreach leaders, after demonstration of skill and leadership capacity, receive additional training by Consultant. This year two initiative is reflective of an empowerment model which essentially works to replace the Consultant and carry on his training. This allows District to stay “in - front” as the face leading the work of transformation. It communicates high-level ownership of transformation for all stakeholders across the community. It allows the healing work to progress beyond Consultant capacity “covering more ground.”  COMMUNITY CIRCLE FOR HEALING AND BRIDGING: Consultant will conduct a series of community Circles first to introduce District plan (as relating to this proposal). However, due to recent events, a series of stakeholder-specific healing Circles may need to be facilitated by Consultant for bridging into that work. Later, District leaders will be responsible for obtaining certifications in Circle keeping in order to carry-on this work and expand its impact to their greater stakeholder community. Though these community Circles will have the task of introducing new procedures, they should also morph into infrastructure practice providing regular (e.g. monthly) opportunities for stakeholder groups to have empathetic communication. This helps provide a space for trust to be established, so when unforeseen devastating impacts occur, District has already facilitated practices for constructive dialogue and a more unified response (e.g. proactive community-building) that limits harm. Outreach leaders to receive additional training from Consultant can be recruited from these Circles to expand systemic healing and restoration. Such training should be open to all stakeholders including youth, parents, and community leaders.  REDESIGN OF MISSION, VISION, PURPOSE, and VALUES: Consultant would work with a core leadership team representative of stakeholders to redesign District-level mission, vision, purpose, and values to realign different schools under one set of guiding principles increasing organizational cohesion, collaboration effectiveness, focused innovation, and clarity. Doing this process at the city -level would be most effective. The result would be a more aligned city direction governing its supporting institutions. Stakeholder voice 2 could be preserved yet focused toward whole-community health, prosperity, equitable access, and member support. Resulting clarity enables community-wide branding, messaging, product development, and change initiatives to connect all stakeholders more successfully as valued contributors to whole -group success. Consultant uses a proprietary process to streamline this effort at whichever governing level. Redefining direction at any governing level can take months. This is unnecessary. With the correct stakeholder representation, such a redesign would take a matter of hours. Consultant’s highest value is his ability to scale individual transformation from one person to many. See attached recommendation letters highlighting his work. His proprietary processes work to trim unnecessary steps, saving even days/weeks/months of time which can more creatively be reassigned to activating stakeholder groups in creation of and pursuit toward an exciting, clear, and new direction, as one. The Objective  Need #1: to develop community-wide practice for more successful conflict resolution and relationship repair across stakeholders at the district- or city-level resulting in less volatile and more orderly responses to conflict and community stakeholder harm.  Need #2: to engage District leadership as front-facing spearheads for community-wide transformation, healing, and restoration resulting in fuller system- or city-wide ownership and practice of restorative work.  Need #3: to repair retroactive harm facilitating ownership across stakeholders of new restorative work and to recruit non-traditional leaders to be change agents for their community resulting in a greater sense of belonging, competence, and personal and group shared value.  Need #4: to align, unite, and transform the city resulting in shared prosperity, acknowledgment, and belonging for everyone. The Opportunity  Goal #1: Introduce The Language of Respect™ providing a step-by-step process for higher-order thinking and decision-making in conflict.  Goal #2: Position higher-level administration at the district- or city-level as authentic humble change agents willing to “do the work” of reconciliation leading the charge.  Goal #3: Advocacy done differently by including traditionally disenfranchised groups as vital members of the leadership and change process alongside higher-level administration.  Goal #4: Serve as change leaders providing a systemic approach other districts can follow to achieve greater unity after significant harm in their community. The Solution  Recommendation #1: Select highly influential representation of stakeholders to serve as part of the initial chang e cohort to receive training and process orientation by Consultant to answer questions, field concerns, and introduce him to the Saint Anthony-New Brighton community.  Recommendation #2: Ensure representation of some—if not all—highest-level city and district leadership in the initial cohort.  Recommendation #3: Activate undiscovered leadership potential of even those who’re likely viewed as “disruptive.” Get the influencers at the table and give Consultant an opportunity to put them in a position to al ign their capacity to serve for greater impact and respect. 3  Recommendation #4: Chronicle through video, art, text, and/or other creative expressions your journey from now to transformation. Rationale  We are family. Something happens when at our root, we see one another as ourselves. The only way that can happen is if we finally realize we’re much more “in common” than we realize. All of us are attempting, through whatever means, to meet our basic human needs. Research shows constantly when there is a cr eative but unified diversity of thought moving in a mutually shared direction, it increases productivity. It dismantles lines we draw by age, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic level to strengthen our “like” groups (e.g., whites, blacks, men, women, etc.) to fight for and protect “what’s ours.” “Our” must be redefined. The processes meant to produce shared practice, cohesion, and commitments that I’ll offer will be a difference -maker, not because of my ability to “tell you what to do,” but because I understand how to align the human heart, create connection, and break-down mental models keeping us from seeing all of us as “we.” The strategies may seem counter -intuitive, but as I often say, the fruit of a tree doesn’t look like its root. In other words, wha t is sown to create systems of new healthy behaviors (fruit) doesn’t often look like the initial steps taken (seeds bearing roots if embedded into infrastructure) to ultimately produce them. As I told my esteemed members of your district school-board, you’re closer than you think. Let me be your guide to help you finish successfully what you’ve started. You already have what you need from an experience, competency, education, and human capital space. I just help amplify, align, and unify it. Execution Strategy We will work together on a dynamic timeline to: 1. Assign dates for retroactive healing Circle(s) and process orientation for leadership cohort. 2. Select initial leaders from stakeholders to receive The Language of Respect™ one-day training. See attached. 3. Determine leadership council at either the city- and/or district-level that will work with Consultant to accomplish mission, vision, purpose, and values redesign and any additional change strategy and implementation. It is understood based on available resources some strategies may not be able to be implemented as noted in the project proposal. This project proposal is based on a best -case outlook and Consultant will work with District to make necessary adjustments, if needed, while discussing potential drawbacks due to such alterations. Consultant will discuss metrics to measure impact before initiating any services as they are outlined in this or future proposals or statements of work. District is advised to use currently-tracked metrics easily obtained and pertinent to this effort to allow for expedient evaluations and adjustments. Consultant, if needed, has pre-established vehicles for any product development or change movement visual assets to spur whole-group unity (e.g. t-shirts, banners, etc.). District, of course, may use its own resources if such an intervention is chosen. Resources Due to COVID-19, depending on time demands, we would need to discuss appropriate training and Circle alternatives to maintain adherence to current state guidelines. Consultant is willing to work in -person provided adequate social distancing, ventilation, and masks are provided by District. In such cases, District would need to secure training space to accommodate up to 50 people with A/V, chart paper/easel, markers (dry erase and standard), and a lapel microphone for groups over 40 (a cordless handheld or h andheld with 20ft of cord will suffice if a lapel is not available). 4 Project Deliverables Following is a complete list of all project deliverables: Deliverable Description Project Deliverable #1 Healing Circle(s) plus orientation of process for initial leadership cohort. Project Deliverable #2 The Language of Respect™ conflict resolution and relationship healing training for initial leadership cohort and future leaders. Project Deliverable #3 Train-the-Coach for initial leadership cohort and future leaders to support stakeholders receiving The Language of Respect™ training. Project Deliverable #4 If implemented, a complete redesign of city- or district-level mission, vision, purpose, and values. Timeline for Execution Key project dates are outlined below. Dates are best-guess estimates and are subject to change until a contract is executed. Description Start Date End Date Duration Healing Circle(s) plus orientation of process for initial leadership cohort. August 2020 September 2020 2 hours ea. The Language of Respect™ conflict resolution and relationship healing training for initial leadership cohort and future leaders. August 2020 July 2022 Full-day Train-the-Coach for initial leadership cohort and future leaders to support stakeholders receiving The Language of Respect™ training. Summer 2021 End of school year 2022 Four full-days (one full-day/group) plus technical support Optional: If implemented, a complete redesign of city- or district-level mission, vision, purpose, and values. AS NEEDED TBD City-level vs. district level will vary due to number of stakeholders Supplied Material The following materials are to be supplied by Saint Anthony-New Brighton School District for this project. For MARIUS MASSIE to meet project milestones, this material must be supplied on schedule. The due dates included in the following table represent our best guess based on current proposed project dates: Materials to be supplied by Saint Anthony-New Brighton School District Due Date* COVID-19 compliant training and coaching area accessible to stakeholders or virtual platform (e.g. Zoom, Google Meet, etc.) with accommodations for those needing Internet/computer access TBD (AS NEEDED) 5 If in-person, masks, projection video with HDMI or VGA input and cable, screen, chart paper/easel, markers (dry erase and standard), and a lapel microphone for groups over 40 (a cordless handheld or handheld with 20ft of cord will suffice if a lapel is not available) TBD (AS NEEDED) Copies (most are electronic documents) TBD (AS NEEDED) *We cannot be responsible for cost overruns caused by client’s failure to deliver materials by agreed-upon due dates. 6 EXPECTED RESULTS We expect our proposed solution to Saint Anthony-New Brighton School District to provide these results: Community Benefits  Result #1: Activation of a more diverse leadership group resulting in a more eclectic, informed, and innovative transformation strategy.  Result #2: Organizational cohesion around approach to conflict resolution resulting in primary impacts such as increasing team unity, collective reengagement across stakeholder groups, and team morale, and secondary impacts including less stress, stronger relationships, innovation, and more restorative approaches to discipline.  Result #3: Infrastructure components embedded to ensure future practices continue that continually build its stakeholder groups together regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic level, providing opportunities for shared engagement, empathy, and continued learning.  Optional Result #4: Synergy birthed across every institution across Saint Anthony-New Brighton (at the city-level) providing opportunities to contribute to the collective direction, and at the district-level, unifying practice across buildings allowing for consistency in messaging, student experience, and innovation. Other Benefits Every harmed district in America is looking for someone to succeed. Be the innovating change agent. Provide the opportunity for collective unity around a singular goal. Without a clear target, we’re shooting in the dark. Hope cannot survive. Such practices we’re proposing fuel hope not just from a philosophical perspective, but aligning technical solutions to support paradigm shifts. It’s worth the work. You can finally be relieved that though not every problem can be “fixed,” you’ll already have a system of togetherness established that can systematically address whatever challenge, and you’ll have already the trusting relationships and practices in place to more successfully meet it. Be legendary. 7 YOUR INVESTMENT The following table details the value for delivery of the services outlined in this proposal. This value is valid for 60 days from the date of this proposal: Services Value Circle Keeping $200/hr. for up to 10 people. Add $20/hr. for each additional person (up to 40). The Language of Respect™ Training $5000/group (up to 50) Train the Coach (outline of services/agreement details available) $10,000/group (up to 12) Mission, Vision, Purpose, and Values Redesign Consultation and Leadership TBD Total TBD Disclaimer: The prices listed in the preceding table are an estimate for the services discussed. This summary is not a warranty of final price. Estimates are subject to change if project specifications are changed. CONCLUSION I believe our innovative approach will turn the tide in Saint Anthony-New Brighton. This presents an opportunity for a collective dream of equitable practice, sustained connection, and community-wide activation towards a common goal: each other. We already have the resources needed—now you need a strategy. I have no doubt with your momentum, new tools and processes/training I’ll provide, and time, we’ll see significant shifts. We’ll see lasting “fruit.” Let’s be part of something this world too often doesn’t see: different ages, ethnicities, genders, and stages of education and career uniting for a greater sense of family. Let’s continue working toward this revolutionary end! Let’s get started. If you want to get moving now toward resolution in your city/di strict before more challenges rob you of this opportunity, contact me as soon as possible, if not now, at 612-547-9160. You can also email me at marius@mariusmassie.com! Every moment counts. I look forward to partnering with you in this next stage of transformation. THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK TO: Mayor & Council FROM: Mark Casey, City Manager RE: Public Safety Commission DATE: August 3, 2020 At its worksession on July 7, 2020 the Council asked staff to provide a recommended model for a Public Safety Commission. Below is possible ordinance language and discussion points. Ordinance Language: The Public Safety Commission is a seven member advisory commission, appointed by the City Council and is charged with the following duties: (A) Advise the City Council on police protection, fire protection, emergency management and other public safety matters; (B) Assist the Police and Fire Departments in assessing community attitudes towards and concerns about public safety services; (C) Assist Police and Fire Departments in developing long range strategic direction in the delivery of public safety services; (D) To promote public interest in and an understanding of public safety and the delivery of these services in the City; (E) To serve as a forum for residents to voice their opinions regarding public safety within the community; (F) Perform other duties as directed by the City Council. Discussion Points: WHAT IT IS WHAT IT IS NOT Advise the City Council on police protection, fire protection, emergency management and other public safety matters A policy-making body that would shift authority away from elected representatives to appointed community members Assist the Police and Fire Departments in assessing community attitudes towards and concerns about public safety services Body with authority over the recruitment, employment, promotion, discipline or discharge of public safety employees Assist Police and Fire Departments in developing long range strategic direction in the delivery of public safety services Charged with evaluation of public safety expenditures and negotiation of service contracts or mutual aid agreements To promote public interest in and an understanding of public safety and the delivery of these services in the City A citizen oversight body to conduct investigations into complaints or allegations of misconduct To serve as a forum for residents to voice their opinions regarding public safety within the community A citizen oversight body directing the work of the chief public safety officers and/or other public safety personnel