HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 08252020
If 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.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe.
The meeting can be viewed live via cable channel 16 in the North Suburbs or the web broadcast at
https://webstreaming.ctv15.org/regionview.php?regionid=64. Due to health concerns and limited seating, we
encourage use of virtual option by using this link: https://www.savmn.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=333 There is
also a dial-in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
For those not in attendance, If you wish to submit a comment or question, electronically submit your comments
at https://www.savmn.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=333 no later than 5:30 pm on the day of the City Council
meeting.
Following guidance from state health officials, some City Council Members may choose to participate in
upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items:
I. Approval of the August 25, 2020, 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 August 11, 2020, City Council meeting minutes. (pp.1-10)
B. Licenses and Permits. (pp.11-12)
C. Claims. (pp.13-15)
D. Appoint Student Liaisons to the Planning and Parks and Environmental Commissions. (pp.17)
IV. Public Hearing.
V. Reports from Commission and Staff
VI. General Business of Council.
A. 2021 Budget Presentation. Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director presenting. (pp.19-34)
B. Ordinance 2020-02 Amending Chapter 91 Animal Control. (2nd of 3 readings). Mark Casey, City
Manager presenting. (pp.35-49)
VII. Reports from City Manager and Council members.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
AUGUST 25, 2020
7:00 p.m.
If 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.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe.
VIII. Community Forum
Individuals may address the City Council about any City business 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, 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
AUGUST 11, 2020 3
4
CALL TO ORDER. 5
6
Mayor Stille called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. 7
8
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 9
10
Mayor Stille invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 11
12
ROLL CALL. 13
14
Present: Mayor Stille, Councilmembers Jenson, Randle, Walker and Webster. 15
Absent: None 16
Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey, City Planner Stephen Grittman, Assistant to the City 17
Manager Charlie Yunker, City Engineer Messner, and Fire Chief Mark Sitarz. 18
Guests: None. 19
20
CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 21
ITEMS. 22
23
I.APPROVAL OF AUGUST 11, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA. 24
25
Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve the City 26
Council Meeting Agenda of August 11, 2020. 27
28
Motion carried 5-0. 29
30
II.PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS – NONE. 31
32
III. CONSENT AGENDA.33
34
A.Approve July 28, 2020, Council meeting minutes.35
B.Licenses and permits.36
C.Claims.37
38
Motion by Councilmember Randle, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve the 39
Consent Agenda items. 40
41
Motion carried 5-0. 42
43
IV. PUBLIC HEARING – NONE.44
45
V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF – NONE. 46
47
VI. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL.48
49
1
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 2
A. Black Village Festival request use of upper Central Park Parking Lot for Saturday, 1
August 15, 2020 2
3
City Manager Casey reviewed the Black Village Festival request with the Council. 4
5
Ms. Semhar Solomon addressed the City Council. She noted there will be COVID precautions 6
put into place and will be asking people that do not have a mask if they would like a mask and if 7
they say no then the person will kindly be asked to leave. Vendors will also be spaced out 8
enough for social distancing. 9
10
Councilmember Walker asked how many people are anticipated coming out to the event. Ms. 11
Solomon thought there would be approximately 250 people at the highest. 12
13
Councilmember Walker asked if there will be copious signage up asking people to maintain an 14
appropriate distance and to also encourage the people to follow certain protocol such as not 15
standing in one spot for so long of a time. Ms. Solomon explained she has signs that are already 16
made and will be put up at every booth and entrance. 17
18
Councilmember Jenson indicated in front of him he had a “Stay Safe Minnesota Guidance for 19
Safe Celebration and Events”. He read the contents of the guide and wondered if Ms. Solomon 20
had a chance to read something like the guide to help her prepare for the festival. Ms. Solomon 21
indicated she did along with the team of friends that is helping her with the event. 22
23
Councilmember Webster explained she serves as the Council representative to VillageFest and in 24
early June the chair of VillageFest, herself and Mr. Casey had as chance to talk through lots of 25
different factors regarding hosting a community event and try to weigh the general liability and 26
safety concerns. She noted as a result that event chose to go about a different route. She was 27
curious in her conversations with vendors, how many vendors are expected and what is the 28
protocol as the vendor is confirming with her and what steps is she taking to make sure these 29
steps will be followed by the vendors. Ms. Solomon explained there are roughly twenty vendors, 30
not all food, and she is making sure that if the vendor is providing food or beverages that the 31
vendor has to wear masks and will be rotating them so the same mask will not be used 32
continuously. She noted she will be providing some masks as well as the vendors having their 33
own masks. There will also be hand sanitizer at every single booth regardless if the vendor is 34
selling food or not, to ensure that space for them is safe for the vendor and patron. 35
36
Councilmember Webster explained the City has been reserving fields and outdoor spaces to 37
community groups and for the things that the City is requiring in that process are a plan needs to 38
be submitted, whether it is a baseball, softball team or other group, when reservations are made 39
and the second piece is the City asks the group to send a list of attendees as well for the purpose 40
of contact tracing in case there is a positive case. Ms. Solomon indicated she does have a list of 41
contacts and specifically who will be at the festival from each place and phone numbers, as well 42
as attendees. 43
44
Mayor Stille stated the Minnesota Department of Health needs to monitor this, at least they have 45
with Kiwanis, and the Health Department is very restrictive in making sure the food is safe and is 46
2
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 3
prepared appropriately and also sanitary. He indicated he did not know the protocols of that but 1
thought there had to be some sort of notification needed in order for that to occur. He explained 2
in the application Ms. Solomon stated she did not need any true assistance other than the 3
privilege of using the space and if Public Works would be willing to use the blockades to block 4
the parking lot space if the parking lot was used and he wondered what was meant by that. Ms. 5
Solomon explained she was not sure if the City would be ok with the festival using the parking 6
lot space because there is a baseball tournament that Saturday happening all throughout the day 7
so if the City was not willing to allow the festival to be in the parking lot space and the grace 8
space then the City would need to tell her which space could be used. 9
10
Mayor Stille asked in regard to the 250 maximum participants as directed by the State of 11
Minnesota for the guidance for safe celebrations and events, how will Ms. Solomon manage if 12
more people were to come to the festival. How will that be regulated. Ms. Solomon explained 13
she will still try to put the best of her abilities, the protocol she already has in place to social 14
distance the vendors and the performance happening at whatever time. There will be marks in 15
the ground to show what six feet in distance looks like and hopefully that guideline will be used. 16
She will also be announcing that guideline throughout the event to hopefully social distance. 17
Mayor Stille thought that limitation will be difficult to be made, which is his point. 18
19
Councilmember Randle asked if the insurance policy has been covered. Ms. Solomon explained 20
she was not aware she would need to obtain an insurance policy but if that is something that is 21
needed then she will get one. Councilmember Randle indicated that is required to rent space. 22
Ms. Solomon indicated she was not aware of that and she also did not know she would need to 23
rent space because it is public space in the City. 24
25
City Manager Casey explained within the City’s facility use rentals the parking lot is not one of 26
those. The only time the parking lot has been rented has been for VillageFest and WinterFest. 27
There is an insurance policy that goes with that but is tied to the liquor operations that both 28
events had and was a requirement of that. At this time there is no City requirement to have 29
insurance for use of a parking lot but also the City is keeping its eyes wide open in that the City 30
is liable at the end of the day if there is any neglect that would be done on the City’s behalf that 31
would happen in that parking lot. He noted this does bring a new issue on board, if the Council 32
so chooses, to add parking lots to reservable places or community services to rent on behalf of 33
the City. He thought that needed to be a discussion for a later date. 34
35
Councilmember Randle asked why Ms. Solomon wants to have a festival now, in the middle of a 36
Pandemic when there are no other cities having festivals and the City of St. Anthony is not even 37
having VillageFest. Ms. Solomon kindly disagreed that festivals along with rallies are 38
happening in South and North Minneapolis which she has been going to. She understood that 39
COVID is a risk but being a part of the movement and being a part of that community is a risk 40
worth taking if it is fighting for what she strives for. Although this festival is not intentionally 41
towards Black Lives Matter movement, it is to redistribute wealth to black and brown families 42
that are well deserved businesses that are under appreciated and to celebrate the black and brown 43
families in St. Anthony and show they can be represented. 44
45
3
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 4
Councilmember Walker noted there have been Juneteenth festivals in the Twin Cities in June. 1
Councilmember Randle asked if there was anyone paying attention to what is currently going on 2
in Minneapolis at this point. Is that a model that they want to model themselves after. Ms. 3
Solomon indicated she did have a rally which was more than 250 people and to her knowledge, if 4
a case had been out, she was not made aware of it and the City was not put to some sort of 5
insurance standard. She thought a festival was a lot safer than a rally. 6
7
Councilmember Walker expressed his concern, along with the Mayor’s in regard to the capacity, 8
he wondered with 200 plus people, will there be staff on site who would keep track of how many 9
people enter the grounds for the festival. He also wanted to know what happens when the 250 10
maximum is reached, would people be turned away and have them come back later. Ms. 11
Solomon explained in a perfect world, no one would be turned down but if that ends up reaching 12
to a point where they cannot safely have a certain number of people there then they will kindly 13
turn people away. She noted there will be legal observers and Marshalls that will be there 14
observing to make sure the scene is safe. She will also have specific people counting the number 15
of people there. 16
17
Councilmember Webster appreciated Ms. Solomon sharing all of her planning with the Council. 18
Ms. Solomon indicated she could send the Council a list of vendors with contact information if 19
needed as well. 20
21
Mayor Stille asked Ms. Solomon to expand on what the Marshalls will be doing. Ms. Solomon 22
explained Marshalls are trained to be within the crowd in case something was to happen, worst 23
case scenario, which she did not think would happen in St. Anthony. These are people that have 24
been training to de-escalate situations if that were to happen. Mayor Stille asked if the Marshalls 25
were armed. Ms. Solomon indicated they were not. 26
27
Councilmember Walker asked if the St. Anthony Police Department has been notified of this 28
event and has Ms. Solomon as been in any conversations with the Police Department to request 29
potential assistance. Ms. Solomon indicated the Police has been notified and she has talked to 30
Chief Mangseth personally and he is aware of the festival and appreciates knowing ahead of 31
time. 32
33
Councilmember Walker indicated Ms. Solomon could reach out to any Councilmember or the 34
City Manager or other personnel for feedback or assistance. Ms. Solomon indicated she 35
appreciated that and would do that. 36
37
Ms. Julianne Hunter explained as much as she likes festivals and wished someone would put one 38
together every weekend what Mr. Casey said about the insurance is not correct. She indicated 39
they do not have insurance on VillageFest just because there is beer. There is insurance because 40
if something happens then they are insured. If they are not insured and the City has allowed 41
them to have it on City grounds, the City is liable for what happens. She noted the vendors are 42
required to have insurance and they have to name the City. She explained this had to be done 43
even before they had beer at the festival. She stated that beer is a major issue and is why the 44
insurance is more but they definitely still have to have insurance regardless, or at least that is her 45
understanding and if she is wrong, they have still had it for as many years that she has been chair 46
4
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 5
of VillageFest. She stated insurance is a big deal and if the City is willing to take that if 1
something happens now that Ms. Solomon has been before the Council requesting use of the 2
land, that is one thing, but she did not believe what Mr. Casey said was one hundred percent 3
correct. 4
5
Ms. Solomon indicated when she addressed this to Mr. Casey and to Ms. Miller regarding the 6
permit and space, if she was aware that she would need insurance then she would have gotten it 7
but she was not aware of it and it was not addressed to her so she did not act on that. 8
9
Councilmember Jenson asked now that everyone is aware there needs to be insurance, do they 10
follow through with that requirement or do they ignore it. Councilmember Webster thought in 11
2014 the State Statute changed specifically for School District facilities and if they were to rent 12
indoor or outdoor School District facility that insurance would be required. Because what makes 13
them unique in St. Anthony is Community Services rents both City and School District. 14
Insurance requirements were applied to any person, whether they rent the outdoor portion of the 15
pavilion at Central Park or the indoor portion at the multi-purpose room. Any reservation that 16
comes through has to have proof of insurance. For an individual it is one and a half million and 17
for an organization it is three million in liability. She thought in this discussion, the City is 18
finding those gaps because they have not rented a parking lot area before. This has created some 19
really good discussion around public spaces that are not necessarily reserved. 20
21
Mayor Stille explained in practicality, if something happens in the parking lot versus down the 22
hill next to the pavilion, it is still City property and why is there any difference between those 23
two venues. 24
25
Mr. Casey indicated when staff reviewed the documents for both VillageFest and WinterFest 26
they looked at the liability waiver form received from the insurance companies and are tied to the 27
liquor. He appreciated the conversation he had with Ms. Solomon. He indicated this puts the 28
Council is a very tough position. He noted staff can check tomorrow with the insurance carrier 29
and see what would be needed to satisfy the City’s needs. 30
31
Ms. Solomon asked if she would have needed insurance if it were a rally. She asked what the 32
difference was between that and public space because the parking lot is public. She wondered 33
which spaces needs insurance and which spaces does not. Mayor Stille indicated he did not 34
know, and that the City was going off the premise that this is a form of VillageFest and what has 35
been done in the past is get full insurance from the organization. 36
37
Councilmember Webster wondered if the vendors could send in their copies of insurance to the 38
City. She assumed some of the vendors that operate small businesses might already have 39
certificates of insurance that they could share, especially if they have been to other festivals. 40
Mayor Stille thought the practicality of getting twenty different certificates of insurance might be 41
difficult and thought the easiest thing would be for the organization to provide their own 42
insurance. Ms. Solomon indicated she was willing to get in contact with every single vendor to 43
get their insurance and although it is a risk, she thought the rally would be and is more of a risk 44
than the festival just because it is harder to tell people to social distance at a march than it is at a 45
festival. 46
5
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 6
1
Ms. Julianne Hunter thought Ms. Solomon could partner with VillageFest because they are a 2
501C3 Organization and have insurance that can cover the City. If it does not work for this 3
weekend because of the insurance than maybe it could be rescheduled for another weekend. Ms. 4
Solomon explained if this does not get approved today then the event would not be able to 5
happen until the next Council meeting. Mr. Casey indicated that was correct unless the Council 6
so wishes to work with VillageFest at acceptable minimal levels than the Council could give 7
someone on staff the authority to move forward with it if it meets the minimal levels. 8
9
Ms. Solomon explained she was not told that she needed insurance when she proposed this to the 10
City so she did not feel that insurance should be required. Councilmember Randle explained he 11
understood where Ms. Solomon is coming from but at the same point, this was pointed out to 12
him that this festival was being advertised in the newspaper before it even came before the City 13
Council for approval. It was apparent that someone knew what was going on and it was apparent 14
that someone knew what their intentions was. He was not saying it was Ms. Solomon but 15
someone was aware that this was going to happen because it was in the paper before it even 16
came before the Council. 17
18
Councilmember Walker stated the point made from Councilmember Randle is that any approval 19
by the Council should have taken place a month ago, pending these kinds of scenarios where Ms. 20
Solomon would not be caught in the middle. Councilmember Randle agreed. Mr. Casey 21
indicated he would take full responsibility for not informing Ms. Solomon about the need for 22
insurance. The request came forward last week. 23
24
Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve the 25
request of the use of upper Central Park Parking Lot by Black Village Festival on Saturday, 26
August 15, 2020 with the understanding that there will be cooperation with the VillageFest 27
Organization for potential insurance coverage and attempts to receive insurance certificates from 28
all of the vendors. 29
30
Councilmember Randle stated as things stand right now, he cannot approve this during the 31
middle of a pandemic. In his opinion it is reckless and irresponsible at this particular point in 32
time because the City is not having VillageFest right now and there are not any other festivals 33
going on right now and in case anyone is paying attention to what is going on in the community, 34
COVID-19 has been rising in the community and is the reason why he is home and not in the 35
Council Chambers. He indicated he disagrees with this. 36
37
Councilmember Walker explained he is hearing what Councilmember Randle is saying but the 38
City is not hosting the festival. He thought the point is well taken. Councilmember Randle 39
indicated the City is still responsible and liable for this, which is his point. 40
41
Mayor Stille indicated his expectations are in adherence with the Minnesota Department of 42
Health Guidelines with regard to social events, and it should all be in the motion as well which 43
means there is a preparation plan and it talks about masks and face coverings and managing 44
occupancy which is 250 or less. These guidelines are here for a reason and he thought the City 45
can take this time to reiterate that these are their expectations here and that the guidelines are 46
6
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 7
followed. He thought as the proposal indicates, the time should be from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1
and the proposal all states the event leaders would clean up the trash. Those are the things that 2
would be his expectations that he would like attached to the motion. He made a friendly 3
amendment to the motion. 4
5
Councilmember Walker agreed with the friendly amendments. She heard in Mayor Stille’s 6
statement, again as Council talked about the criteria when reserving a space currently, there is an 7
insurance requirement, a COVID plan requirement that needs to be adhered to and tracking the 8
attendees for purposes of contact tracing. She wondered if those items should be added to the 9
motion as well. 10
11
Ms. Julianne Hunter indicated she wanted to be clear that when she stated she would be willing 12
to partner with Ms. Solomon that VillageFest cannot do that by this weekend. VillageFest 13
cannot get insurance by this weekend. This is a 501C3 Organization and has to have a board 14
meeting with a majority vote. She explained they are definitely willing to listen and see if they 15
are willing to partner with Ms. Solomon, but she can guarantee this cannot be done by this 16
Saturday. While she realized that everyone heard she was willing, she wanted to make sure the 17
Council knew that she could not do it by Saturday and she agreed with Councilmember Randle 18
and was not sure if everyone recognized the amount of COVID cases in the Village right now. 19
She would never be behind any kind of gathering at this time. 20
21
Councilmember Webster thanked Ms. Hunter for clarifying and through her motion she put Ms. 22
Hunter in an awkward position. That was not her intention and appreciated her honesty. She 23
was also thinking that the original motion with those conditions of insurance, a COVID 24
preparedness plan and tracking attendees might still happen. There are other ways to achieve a 25
special event insurance policy even with a few days’ notice. She still thought those three 26
conditions would be important for them as a Council to consider before they consider the request 27
to use the upper parking lot. 28
29
Mayor Stille indicated because the motion has become confusing, he suggested the motion be 30
withdrawn and a new motion made. 31
32
Councilmember Webster indicated she would withdraw her original motion and all of its 33
revisions. 34
35
Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve the 36
request of the use of upper Central Park Parking Lot by Black Village Festival on Saturday, 37
August 15, 2020 with three conditions: 38
39
1. There is an insurance policy for the event with insurance gathered from all of the 40
vendors. 41
2. COVID preparedness plan for the event. 42
3. The Ability to collect contact information for the attendees for the purpose of contact 43
tracing. 44
4. Adherence to the Guidance for Safe Celebrations and Events which includes the 250 45
people limitation. 46
7
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 8
5. Time of the event being 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 1
6. Cleaning up and removal of trash after the event. 2
3
Mayor Stille explained he did not have a problem with the event itself and is something that 4
should be embraced as an event. He indicated he was not crazy about the way it came together, 5
at last minute. When the City does things, he likes to do them right and obviously the City is 6
struggling with doing things right versus making something that might be really good happen in 7
the midst of a pandemic. He noted he has been hearing of cases throughout the community 8
which concerns him. He indicated his vote will be predicated on the safety and healthy and 9
welfare of the community where they live. 10
11
Ayes – 3, Nays – 2 (Randle, Stille). Motion carried. 12
13
B. Resolution 20-062; a Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report and Ordering Plans and 14
Specifications for the 2021 Street and Utility Improvements. 15
16
City Engineer Messner reviewed the resolution with the Council. 17
18
Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Randle, to approve Resolution 19
20-062; a Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report and Ordering Plans and Specifications for the 20
2021 Street and Utility Improvements. 21
22
Motion carried 5-0. 23
24
C. Ordinance 2020-02; an Ordinance Amending Chapter 91 Animal Control. 25
26
City Manager Casey reviewed the Ordinance amendment with the Council. 27
28
Councilmember Webster asked if the two-step appeal process remains in this version of the 29
Ordinance. Mr. Casey indicated it would remain. 30
31
Ms. Ann Letsinger, asked what classifies a dangerous dog. Mr. Casey explained a dangerous 32
dog would be determined by a police officer if it actually bit anyone. 33
34
Ms. Renee Reed explained she lived on the street where there is a dangerous dog and she 35
wondered who decides what the proper enclosure will be. Mr. Casey indicated the property 36
owner would submit something and the City would go out and find a subject matter expert on 37
what would be considered a proper enclosure. Mayor Stille thought that was a good question 38
and could research this further before the second reading. 39
40
Ms. Reed asked even with a proper enclosure, who would be responsible if the dog jumps over 41
or gets out of the enclosure. Mr. Casey reviewed State Statute. He noted it would be the 42
property owner’s responsibility. 43
44
Ms. Reed requested the dog be muzzled at all times outside of the home. 45
46
8
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 9
Motion by Councilmember Randle, seconded by Councilmember Webster, to approve first 1
reading of Ordinance 2020-02; an Ordinance Amending Chapter 91 of the City Ordinance, 2
Animal Control. 3
4
Mayor Stille explained as he saw this, he thought this gives the City more teeth to the Ordinance 5
for the City. 6
7
Motion carried 5-0. 8
9
C. Consider starting Abatement Process at 3208 Skycroft Drive 10
11
Fire Chief Sitarz reviewed the item with the Council. 12
13
Councilmember Randle indicated he walked by the property and took a look at it. He wondered 14
if anyone on staff has had contact with the property owner and does the property owner know the 15
magnitude of the items on his property. Chief Sitarz explained he put together documentation of 16
the Fire Department’s various interactions with the property owner. He stated this started on 17
June 15, 2020 and followed up on June 17th and on June 26th a letter was sent with a follow-up 18
on July 15th as well as July 22nd. He noted staff has tried numerous times to get in contact with 19
this property owner specifically and each time they have left something they told him what the 20
issue was and to contact the City about the process. There were also deadlines that the individual 21
needed to meet. He noted other times over the years where the individual was brought to court 22
about these issues. 23
24
Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to authorize staff to 25
start the abatement process at 3208 Skycroft Drive. 26
27
Mayor Stille indicated this is rather heavy stuff and staff does not like to do this, but it needs to 28
be done to keep the City looking nice. 29
30
Motion carried 5-0. 31
32
D. Resolution 20-063; a Resolution Accepting Resignation of City Manager and Appoint 33
Interim City Manager. 34
35
City Manager Casey reviewed the resolution with the Council. He thanked the Council for 36
allowing him to serve in the position and has been an honor. He recommended appointing 37
Charlie Yunker as Interim City Manager until one can be appointed. 38
39
Motion by Councilmember Randle, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve Resolution 40
20-063; a Resolution Accepting Resignation of City Manager and Appoint Interim City 41
Manager. 42
43
Motion carried 5-0. 44
45
VII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 46
9
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 11, 2020
Page 10
1
Councilmember Webster stated on August 12th the St. Anthony Family Services will be hosting 2
its meeting on Zoom. 3
4
Councilmember Jenson stated on August 3rd he attended the work session at City Hall Chambers 5
along with the work session on August 4th with Congresswoman Omar. 6
7
Mayor Stille stated he attended the August 3rd and 4th Council work sessions. On August 5th he 8
attended the liquor store appreciation event that was held for the employees. 9
10
VIII. COMMUNITY FORUM. 11
12
Mayor Stille invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items that 13
are not on the regular agenda. 14
15
Ms. Katie Michaelson, 2917 Armour Terrace stated her only comment regarding Black 16
VillageFest is that it seems that tonight it is unclear whether it needs insurance or not. She 17
requested the City check with the insurance carrier to check on what is actually needed. Mr. 18
Casey indicated staff will contact the League of Minnesota Insurance as soon as the doors open 19
tomorrow. 20
21
Mr. Casey read an email from Ms. Suzanne Kedrok, 3424 Belden Drive, St. Anthony. 22
23
Hearing no one else, Mayor Stille moved forward with the agenda. 24
25
IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 26
27
None. 28
29
X. ADJOURNMENT. 30
31
Mayor Stille adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 32
33
Respectfully submitted, 34
Sue Osbeck 35
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 36
37
Mayor 38
ATTEST: 39
City Clerk 40
10
Saint Anthony Village
DATE: Aug 25, 2020 Approved:
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: License Clerk
ITEM: License and Permits for Approval:
General Contractors License:
Spectrum Sign Systems, Blaine, MN
Mechanical Licenses:
Apollo Heating & Air, Maplewood, MN
Larson Plumbing, Andover, MN
Majestic Custom Heating & AC, Ramsey, MN
MSP Plumbing Heating & Air, St Paul, MN
Commercial Rental Licenses:
Applicant: St Anthony Leased Housing Associations
Location: 2500 38th Ave NE
2501 – 2551 38th Ave NE
Applicant: Lang Nelson Associates
Location: 2540 Kenzie Ter NE
Residential Rental Licenses:
Applicant: Walter Sentyrz Jr
Location: 2604 27th Ave NE
2508 St Anthony Blvd NE
3100 Wilson St NE
Applicant: Erich Young
Location: 2921 31st Ave NE
Applicant: Roy Quady
Location: 2803 33rd Ave NE
2807 33rd Ave NE
Applicant: David Perch
Location: 2508 34th Ave NE
11
Applicant: Tim Ryan
Location: 3100 36th Ave NE
Applicant: Elizabeth Peterson
Location: 2606 37th Ave NE
Applicant: Sue Tettemer
Location: 3121 39th Ave NE
Applicant: Brandon Lasell
Location: 3608 Edward St NE
Applicant: Marisa Patrin
Location: 3821 Foss Rd NE
Applicant: KKR Real Estate Holdings
Location: 3207 Stinson Blvd NE
12
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 8/7/2020 - 8/26/2020 Aug 18, 2020 04:35PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
10710 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 41686 08/07/2020 1,666.00
11792 INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL #49 41687 08/07/2020 420.00
11793 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES 41688 08/07/2020 1,054.00
10002 LOCAL UNION IAFF #3486 41689 08/07/2020 357.30
10684 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 41690 08/11/2020 584.40
11740 XCEL ENERGY 41691 08/11/2020 19,578.87
12760 10322006 SSI MN TRANCHE (FD)41692 08/26/2020 1,130.28
1118 56 BREWING 41693 08/26/2020 674.00
1121 ABLE SEED HOUSE + BREWERY 41694 08/26/2020 1,130.00
10042 ALBRECHT 41695 08/26/2020 950.00
10056 ALLIED MEDICAL PRODUCTS 41696 08/26/2020 142.88
1122 AM CRAFTS SPIRITS 41697 08/26/2020 137.76
1054 AMERICAN BOTTLING CO 41698 08/26/2020 215.76
10073 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN 41699 08/26/2020 260.00
10098 ARAMARK 41700 08/26/2020 266.20
1100 ARTISIAN BEER COMPANY 41701 08/26/2020 9,842.15
12180 ARVIG CONSTRUCTION 41702 08/26/2020 352.50
10115 ASPEN MILLS 41703 08/26/2020 96.15
2030 BALD MAN BREWING 41704 08/26/2020 900.70
1013 BELLBOY CORPORATION 41705 08/26/2020 9,934.49
1014 BELLBOY CORPORATION 41706 08/26/2020 922.55
10172 BIFFS, INC.41707 08/26/2020 228.00
2009 BLACK STACK BREWING 41708 08/26/2020 558.00
10185 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 41709 08/26/2020 127.99
8544 BOURGET IMPORTS 41710 08/26/2020 317.25
1018 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER 41711 08/26/2020 32,502.10
1011 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 41712 08/26/2020 23,877.05
1009 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 41713 08/26/2020 4,576.40
12960 BREEDEN, DAVID 41714 08/26/2020 56.18
1114 CANNON RIVER WINERY 41715 08/26/2020 156.00
1017 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 41716 08/26/2020 31,222.19
10252 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 41717 08/26/2020 1,366.42
10263 CENTURYLINK 41718 08/26/2020 497.86
12596 CINTAS 41719 08/26/2020 542.55
10293 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 41720 08/26/2020 14,609.00
1010 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE COMPANY 41721 08/26/2020 1,984.00
12958 COCHRAN, BOB & CHRIS 41722 08/26/2020 49.85
12924 COREMARK METALS 41723 08/26/2020 153.06
1042 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE 41724 08/26/2020 700.38
10375 DALCO 41725 08/26/2020 289.68
10393 DELL MARKETING LP 41726 08/26/2020 1,301.50
10432 DORSEY & WHITNEY 41727 08/26/2020 6,148.00
12957 EUTENEURER, SRA 41728 08/26/2020 90.00
10501 FASTENAL COMPANY 41729 08/26/2020 13.98
10508 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 41730 08/26/2020 68.58
10526 FLEETPRIDE 41731 08/26/2020 129.16
1110 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 41732 08/26/2020 61.80
10578 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 41733 08/26/2020 456.60
1021 GREAT LAKES COCA COLA 41734 08/26/2020 441.36
10642 HENN CNTY INFO TECH DEPT 41735 08/26/2020 4,997.21
10661 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 41736 08/26/2020 350.60
1019 HOHENSTEIN'S, INC 41737 08/26/2020 9,451.76
2013 INBOUND BREWCO 41738 08/26/2020 970.40
13
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 8/7/2020 - 8/26/2020 Aug 18, 2020 04:35PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
1027 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 41739 08/26/2020 1,971.35
10733 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH, INC.41740 08/26/2020 100.00
1016 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING 41741 08/26/2020 49,389.23
1102 JOHNSON BROTHERS 41742 08/26/2020 3,984.34
1004 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.41743 08/26/2020 2,049.40
1005 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.41744 08/26/2020 5,317.67
1006 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.41745 08/26/2020 17,114.97
1044 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.41746 08/26/2020 15,700.75
10797 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 41747 08/26/2020 57.90
2028 LADONA CERVECERIA 41748 08/26/2020 724.00
10857 LMCIT % BERKLEY ADMINISTRATORS 41749 08/26/2020 234.16
10833 LMCIT %BERKLEY RISK ADMIN CO 41750 08/26/2020 42,076.00
2010 LUPULIN BREWING 41751 08/26/2020 502.00
1022 M. AMUNDSON LLP 41752 08/26/2020 2,402.54
2029 MEGA BEER 41753 08/26/2020 551.15
10963 MINNEAPOLIS SAW COMPANY INC 41754 08/26/2020 3.08
11032 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH 41755 08/26/2020 5,669.00
10994 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 41756 08/26/2020 615.00
11019 MISTER CAR WASH 41757 08/26/2020 52.16
12441 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 41758 08/26/2020 141.21
11079 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES 41759 08/26/2020 7,577.66
1125 NEGOCE 41760 08/26/2020 623.46
1051 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY 41761 08/26/2020 1,062.00
11131 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORPORATION.41762 08/26/2020 617.50
12778 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC 41763 08/26/2020 3,707.80
11163 OFFICE DEPOT 41764 08/26/2020 107.94
11164 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY STATE 41765 08/26/2020 120.00
12779 OPTION ONE MECHANICAL LLC 41766 08/26/2020 7,793.00
11185 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC.41767 08/26/2020 100.00
1012 PAUSTIS & SONS 41768 08/26/2020 3,196.93
2034 PEQUOD DISTRIBUTION 41769 08/26/2020 2,523.00
1001 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 41770 08/26/2020 9,268.39
1002 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 41771 08/26/2020 4,959.07
12747 PRECISE MRM LLC 41772 08/26/2020 50.00
2019 PRYES BREWING COMPANY 41773 08/26/2020 1,017.00
11991 RL LARSON EXCAVATING INC 41774 08/26/2020 691,485.31
12959 RODGERS, RAY 41775 08/26/2020 140.66
11345 ROSEVILLE CHRYSLER DODGE 41776 08/26/2020 1,711.99
2018 SMALL LOT WINES 41777 08/26/2020 198.04
1024 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41778 08/26/2020 5,224.00
1008 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41779 08/26/2020 1,087.55
1026 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41780 08/26/2020 18,478.36
1036 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 41781 08/26/2020 218.56
2001 STEEL TOE BREWING 41782 08/26/2020 159.00
12026 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 41783 08/26/2020 461.00
11531 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS 41784 08/26/2020 68.34
1098 TRADITION WINE & SPIRITS 41785 08/26/2020 165.00
11819 TRUE NORTH ELECTRIC 41786 08/26/2020 1,068.65
11626 U.S. BANK (PURCHASING CARD)41787 08/26/2020 6,303.77
12776 USS MINNESOTA ONE MT LLC (CH)41788 08/26/2020 8,415.33
11674 VERIZON WIRELESS 41789 08/26/2020 114.82
11682 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 41790 08/26/2020 25.87
1025 VINOCOPIA 41791 08/26/2020 782.50
14
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 8/7/2020 - 8/26/2020 Aug 18, 2020 04:35PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
11699 WAL-MART BUSINESS CENTER 41792 08/26/2020 71.76
12418 WALTERS RECYCLING AND REFUSE INC 41793 08/26/2020 191.63
11704 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 41794 08/26/2020 1,446.04
11933 WIMACTEL INC 41795 08/26/2020 50.00
12648 WINDSTREAM 41796 08/26/2020 57.01
1034 WINE COMPANY/THE 41797 08/26/2020 1,552.45
1038 WINE MERCHANTS INC 41798 08/26/2020 1,804.15
1032 WINEBOW 41799 08/26/2020 5,107.00
11731 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GRP, INC.41800 08/26/2020 121.17
Grand Totals: 1,126,800.52
15
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
16
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: August 25, 2020
Motion- Appointing Student Liaisons on the Planning and Parks and Environmental Commissions.
OVERVIEW:
The New Brighton-St. Anthony School District is in it’s third year of the Youth in Leadership program
that places youth on a variety of civic organization boards. As part of our identified goal to foster and
encourage civic engagement, we have added youth as non-voting members to both our Planning, and
Parks & Environmental Commissions. This opportunity gives the youth the experience of serving on
an appointed board, learning about issues tasked to the Planning, and Parks & Environmental
Commissions, developing leadership skills while building their resume. The city benefits by hearing
from youth regarding city issues during discussion at the meetings.
The term of their appointments will be September 2020 through July 2021.
Staff recommends appointing Bethlehem Beyene (2019-2020 Student Liaison) as the Student Liaison
to the Planning Commission and Lucas Lundgren as the Student Liaison to the Parks & Environmental
Commission for 2020-2021.
17
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
18
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 25 2020
TO: Mark Casey, City Manager
FROM: Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director
ITEM: 2021 Preliminary Levy / General Fund Budget
At the March 31st work session, the City Council and staff reviewed the proposed 2021 Debt
Levy. The Debt Levy is comprised of the Road Improvement Debt, the Lease Revenue Bonds
and the Tax Abatement levies. Also on the July 7th work session the City Council reviewed the
2020 General Fund Budget/Levy, and proposed adjustments to the Housing Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) levy , Capital Improvement and Building Improvement Fund levies.
Staff’s is proposing a 2021 overall levy of $7,865,595. The 2021 proposal represents an increase
of $256,137 or a 3.37% increase from 2020.
The components of the 2021 proposed preliminary levy are as follows:
The standard parameters for preparing the General Fund Budget and Levy include:
• City revenues budgeted using current run rates for sources that are subject to trends and
conservative baseline estimates for re-occurring aids and charges for services.
• Expenses budgeted at amounts that will maintain present level of City services.
• Liquor transfer to the general Fund are based on operating results.
The General Fund Budget and Levy cost drivers are as follows
Each year the General Fund revenue and expenditure budget line items are examined for
changes in expected collections/charges, labor adjustments, changes in contract rates,
insurance rates, utility costs, usage of various materials or needs, etc. The findings of this
examination produce the drivers associated with the proposed 3.37% increase in the General
Fund Levy - see below:
2020 $ Change 2021 % Change
General Fund 4,571,013$ 183,637 4,754,650$ 4.02%
HRA Fund 185,064 12,500 197,564 6.75%
CIP Fund 283,200 - 283,200 0.00%
Debt Service Funds 2,487,181 - 2,487,181 0.00%
Infrastructure Fund - 60,000 60,000 na
Building Improvement Fund 83,000 - 83,000 0.00%
Total 7,609,458$ 256,137$ 7,865,595$ 3.37%
19
Expenditures:
• Personnel costs – 70.2% of expenditures, costs increased by $162,175 or 3.1% (wages
representing 2.1% and health insurance 1%).
• The Unions wage increases at the 2021 estimated contracts amounts.
• Health Insurance premium increase of 9.32% is shared 50/50 by City and the
Union and Non-union employees Consistent with the Union contracts.
• Union Longevity and Step increases.
• Contracted services – 10.8% of expenditures, overall increase of $34,848.
• Construction permits inspections at baseline activity and increased construction
costs results in slight expense increase of $1,772.
• Assessor, Attorney, Auditor, Engineer and Planner services reflect rate and activity
increases. In 2021 engineering for small scale improvement projects will supported
by the Infrastructure levy. The net result of these factors is cost impact of $2,450.
• Contracted Information Technology costs up $21,030.
• Miscellaneous service contracts are estimated to increase by $9,596.
• Other Insurance costs – 4.3% of expenditures, overall costs up by $41,986.
• Property, casualty and liability costs increased by $20,941 or 14.86%.
• Worker’s compensation costs increased $20,145 or 14.93%.
• Both Worker’s Compensation and Property and Liability coverages have
experienced rate increases in the prior and current renewal periods beyond budget
estimates.
• Pass through costs – 2.4% of expenditures, costs down $127,350.
• The Saint Anthony Fire Relief Association elected to transition the management of
its pension fund to the state plan managed by PERA. Therefore the State Aid for
the Fire Relief Association will not be a budgeted pass through cost in 2021,
reduced costs by $52,083.
• The City of New Brighton has expanded their Public works facility to
accommodate refueling City vehicles on-site. January 2021 will be the last month
gas purchases will include New Brighton’s use. Therefore 2021 gasoline purchases
are expected to decline by $77,478 (net impact on budget is approximately
$3,000).
• Remaining budget line items – 12.3% of overall expenditures or $954,264, costs down
$17,450. The overall decrease is substantially due to the annual sealcoating costs of
approximately $35,000 will now be supported by the Infrastructure levy.
• Costs include repairs and maintenance, utilities, fuels, training, supplies,
communications, etc.
Revenues:
• Liquor transfer to the General Fund remains at $250,000 for 2021.
• 2021 State funded Local Government Aid has increased by $30,833.
• Police contracted services has increased by $26,147.
• Excess Tax Increment collections are projected to decrease by $20,386 in 2021.
• General Fund investment earnings are expected to decline by $10,500 in 2021.
20
The 2021 HRA Budget and Levy cost driver is substantially personnel and professional costs.
Therefore the proposed Levy increase for the HRA is 6.75% or $12,500.
The 2021 Debt Related Levies are proposed to increase by $0 over the 2020 combined levies.
A debt levy reduction program (Peak to Plateau) began in 2014 to stabilize the annual increase in
levies created by the annual street reconstruction plan. Without the use of resources committed to
this program the impact of 2020 street bonds issued along with existing debt service
requirements would have required a 10.42 % increase in the overall Levy.
The 2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the 2021 Building Improvement Levies
annually proposed increases of $25,000 and $5,000 respectively are being deferred for 2021.
Adjustments have been made to CIP and Building Improvement replacement schedules to
make the zero levy increase in these capital improvement funds possible.
For 2021 a levy to support Infrastructure improvements is proposed at $60,000. As
discussed earlier specific costs supported by the general Fund levy in 2020 will now be
supported by the Infrastructure levy in 2021. Therefore there is no overall levy increase due to
establishing an additional capital fund levy.
2020 CARES Act funding
The City has received CARES Act funding to reimburse the City for necessary expenditures
incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19). The COVID -19 costs incurred or are in progress include:
• Personal protective equipment, sanitizers, and similar supplies.
• Modifications to facilities for social distancing / protective barriers.
• Modifications to facilities HVAC systems to provide an ionization process to which
eliminates viruses from the air exchange.
• New Technologies to provide online ordering and curbside pick-up at the Liquor stores,
added modules to financial software for the licenses, permits and inspection to provide
for contact free processing.
• Computer equipment to enable efficiently in working remotely.
• Employment costs incurred to reduce the employee’s exposure to COVID-19.
• First responder costs in a COVID-19 environment.
Covid -19 expenditures in 2020 are not expected to negatively affect the current budget process.
Upcoming Budget meetings
At the September 8, 2020 City Council meeting, Staff will present the preliminary 2021
Budget and Property Tax Levy to the City Council for approval. At this meeting a resolution will
need to be passed certifying the preliminary levy to Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.
The final presentation of the 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy is scheduled for the December
8, 2020 Council Meeting. At the meeting, Staff will present a recap of the 2021 Budget and the
impact of the 2021 Property Tax Levy.
21
Path to the 2021 Tax Levy
Cost of City Services:
$7,880,250
Police, Fire, Public
Works, Parks,
Emergency Mgmt,
Finance,
Administration, HRA
City Revenues Generated:
$2,928,214
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental Aids
Charges for Services,
Fines, Reimbursements
and Transfers
Gap:
$4,952,214
Levy Amount
$4,952,214
Buildings Maintenance &
Equipment Replacement:
$200,000 - $850,000*
City Buildings, Fleet, Snow
Plows, Fire Engines,
Equipment, Technology,
Park Shelters
City Revenues Generated:
$220,500
Transfers, Equipment
Sales, Park Dedication
Fees, Grants, Fees
Gap:
$426,200*
Levy Amount
$426,200
2021 Debt Service
Obligations:
$3,023,856
Street and Utility
Reconstruction, Flood
Mitigation, Parks and
City Facilities
R i
Debt Levy Reduction
Program Resources:
$536,675
Municipal State Aid,
Excess Bond Funds,
Project Savings,
Stormwater Fees
Gap:
$2,487,181
Levy Amount
$2,487,181
Total Levy
Amount
$7,865,595
Cost of Services Less Operational Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy
Replacement Costs Less Generated Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy
Debt Payments Less Debt Reduction Resources Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy
Nd
Operating Funds Capital Improvement Debt Levy * Annual needs range from
$200,000 - $850,000 based
on timing of replacement.
* Gap determined by
monitoring fund balance
annually to maintain 15-
year replacement plan.
22
2021 PROPOSED BUDGET August 25, 2020
2021 BUDGET CALENDAR
•January 16 & 17, 2020: Goal Setting, Financial Management and Planning
•February 26, 2020: Adopted Strategic Plan including financial
management and planning
•March 31, 2020: Council work session to review proposed infrastructure
improvement schedule and resulting 2021 Debt levy requirements
•May - July: Staff Meetings with Department Heads – Discussion on 2021
Operating Budget and Capital Budgets
23
2021 BUDGET CALENDAR
July 7, 2020: Council work session to review initial overall Property Tax
Levy estimates and General Fund Budget
August 25, 2020 (tonight’s meeting): Presentation of Proposed 2021
Budget & Property Tax Levy to the City Council
September 8, 2020: Public Hearing to pass resolution setting the
Preliminary 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
December 8, 2020: Public Hearing for Presentation of Final 2021 Operating
Budget and Levy with Public Input. Adoption of the Final 2021
Operating Budget and Property Tax
2021 BUDGET PARAMETERS
•City revenues budgeted using current run rates for sources that are
subject to trends and conservative baseline estimates for re-occurring aids
and charges for services
•Expenses budgeted at amounts that will maintain present level of City
services
•Liquor transfers are based on operating results
24
PATH TO THE 2021 TAX LEVY
Cost of Services Less Operational Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy Need
Cost of City Services:
$7,880,250
Police, Fire, Public
Works, Parks,
Emergency
Management, Finance
Administration and
HRAOperating FundsCity Revenues
Generated:
$2,928,036
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental
Aids, Charges for
Services, Fines,
Reimbursements and
Transfers
Gap:
$4,952,214
Levy Amount
$4,952,214
PATH TO THE 2021 TAX LEVY
Replacement Costs Less Generated Revenues Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy Need
Capital Improvement* Annual needs range from
$200,000 ‐$850,000 based
on timing of replacement.
Buildings Maintenance &
Equipment Replacement:
$200,000 -
$850,000*
City Buildings, Fleet,
Snow Plows, Fire Engines,
Equipment, Technology,
Park Shelters and City
Infrastructure
City Revenues
Generated:
$220,500
Transfers,
Equipment Sales,
Park Dedication
Fees, Grants, Fees
Gap:
$426,200*
Levy Amount
$426,200
* Gap determined by
monitoring fund
balance annually to
maintain a 15 year
replacement plan.
25
PATH TO THE 2021 TAX LEVY
Debt Payments Less Debt Reduction Resources Leaves a Funding Gap, Which Equals Levy Need
Debt LevyLevy Amount
$2,487,181
Gap:
$2,487,181
2020 Debt Service
Obligations:
$3,023,856
Street and Utility
Reconstruction, Flood
Mitigation, Parks
and City Facilities
Debt Levy
Reduction Program
Resources:
$536,675
Municipal State
Aid, Excess Bond
Funds, Project
Savings,
Stormwater Fees Total Levy
Amount
$7,865,595
GENERAL FUND AND LEVY
2020 2021 Increase
General/HRA $4,756,077 $4,952,214 $196,137
Debt Service $2,487,181 $2,487,181 $0
Capital/Building/Infrastructure
Improvements $366,200 $426,200 $60,000
Overall Levy $7,609,458 $7,865,595 $256,137
Total Percent Change 3.37%
26
OVERALL LEVY BY FUND TYPE
General & HRA
Operating,
63%
Debt Service,
32%
Capital & Building
Improvements,
5%
2021 GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Tax Levy
64%Licenses, Permits,
& Fines
5%
Intergovernmental
Revenue
13%
Contracts
12%
Miscellaneous
3%
Transfers
3%
27
2021 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Administration
11%Finance
4%
Police
47%
Fire
16%
Public Works
12%
Parks
4%
All Other
6%
2021 BUDGET - COST DRIVERS
•Personnel costs: 70% of expenditures, overall costs up $162,175 or
3.1% ( wages representing 2.1% and health insurance 1%)
Union wage increases at 2021 estimated settlement amounts.
9.32% Health Insurance premium increase shared 50%
Employee/Employer
Union’s scale steps and longevity costs
28
2021 BUDGET - COST DRIVERS
•Contracted services: 10.8% of expenditures, overall costs up $34,848
Contracted Information Technology costs up $21,030
Assessor, Attorney, Auditor, Engineer, Inspector and Planner
services up $4,222. Engineering costs for small scale improvement
will be an Infrastructure Fund expense in 2021
Miscellaneous service contracts are estimated to increase by $9,596
•Insurance costs: 4.3% of expenditures, overall higher by $41,985
Worker’s Compensation and Property and Liability coverages have
experienced rating increases in the prior and current renewal
periods beyond budget estimates
2021 BUDGET - COST DRIVERS
•Pass through costs: 2.4% of expenditures, costs down $127,350, decrease
primarily due to:
State Aid for the Fire Relief Association will go directly from the
State to PERA in 2021, budgeted at $52,083 in 2020
City of New Brighton gasoline purchasing ending in January 2021,
sales decrease of $77,478
•Remaining budget line items combined total $954,264 or 12.3% of
expenditures, net costs down $17,450 or 1.8%
This decrease is due to the annual street sealcoating expense will be
an expenditure of the Infrastructure Fund beginning in 2021
29
2021 BUDGET - OTHER FACTORS
•Liquor transfer to the General Fund remains at $250,000 for 2021
•2021 State funded Local Government Aid has increased by $30,833
•Police contracted services has increased by $26,147
•Excess Tax Increment collections are projected to decrease by
$20,386 in 2021
•General Fund investment earnings are expected to decline by
$10,500 in 2021
2021 PROPOSED LEVIES
2020 Actual 2021 Proposed
$ Increase/
(Decrease)% Change
General Fund $4,571,013 $4,754,650 $183,637 4.02%
C.I.P. $283,200 $283,200 $0 0%
Road Improvement Debt $1,927,204 $1,913,699 $(13,505) (0.70)%
Lease Revenue Bonds $341,602 $344,897 3,295 .96%
HRA Levy $185,064 $197,564 $12,500 6.75%
Tax Abatement $218,375 $228,585 $10,210 4.68%
Building Improvement $83,000 $83,000 0 0%
Infrastructure Improvement $0 $60,000 $60,000 NA
Total Percent Change 3.37%
30
ISSUANCE OF 2020A G.O. BONDS
•2020A General Obligation Bonds - $3,000,000
Street Reconstruction and Utilities replacement
32nd Avenue - from Rankin Road to Croft Drive
Croft Drive – from 32
nd Avenue to 31st Avenue
Silver Lake Terrace
Mill and Overlay
Silver Lake Road – from Stinson Boulevard to Silver Lake Road
•In 2020 the median value home’s property taxes were $57.63 monthly for road, utility, parks and facility improvements
IMPACT OF DEBT LEVY RELIEF
•Overall levy increase without DLR: 10.42%
•With debt levy relief: 3.37% increase
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
31
SUMMARY OF 2021 BUDGET
•General Fund operating budget totals $7,695,184, supported by a
property tax levy of 4,754,650
•Personnel costs represent 70.2% of General Fund expenditures:
•Costs up $162,175 or 3.1%
•Insurance expenditures up $41,986
•Contracted services up $34,848
•Increase in Local Government Aid $30,833
•Capital Funds levies increased by $60,000
•Increase in all levies totals $256,137 or 3.37%
WHAT DOES THE GENERAL FUND
LEVY SUPPORT?
•The following city services:
Administration
Police
Fire
Public Works
Finance
Parks
•In 2020 the average homeowner paid $1,270.94 for City services
Home valued at $322,000
$105.91/month
32
GRANTS/DONATIONS – PARTNERSHIPS
•Since 1999 to date:
City has been awarded $33,119,871
Grants
Donations from local businesses/residents
$3,586 per resident (Based on population of 9,234)
•Partnerships:
City of Birchwood Village
2020 CARES ACT FUNDING
Provides funds for necessary expenditures incurred due to the public
health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019.
•Personal protective equipment, sanitizers, and similar supplies
•Modifications to facilities for social distancing / protective barriers
•Modifications to facilities HVAC systems to provide an ionization process to
which eliminates viruses from the air exchange
•New Technologies to provide for contact free processing licenses & permits and
curb side pick up at Liquor stores
•Computer equipment to enable employee's greater efficiently in working remotely
•Employment costs incurred to reduce the employee’s exposure to COVID-19
•First responder costs in a COVID-19 environment
33
NEXT STEPS
•August 25, 2020 (tonight’s meeting): Presentation
Proposed 2021 Budget & Property Tax Levy to the City Council
•September 8, 2020: Public Hearing
Resolution setting the Preliminary 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
•December 8, 2020: Public Hearing
Approving the Final 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
Adoption of 2021 Budget and Property Tax Levy
QUESTIONS?Call Finance Director: Shelly
Rueckert 612‐782‐3316
34
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: August 25, 2020
Dangerous Dog Ordinance – Second Reading
OVERVIEW:
At the August 3, 2020 City Council Work Session, staff presented a memo from the City Attorney on
the Review of Dangerous Dog Ordinance which included a summary of their findings, along with a
proposed redline of the current ordinance, state statute (MS 347.50-.565), and the ordinances of the
other cities that they reviewed (Roseville, New Brighton, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Plymouth).
By consensus of the mayor and council, staff was directed to follow the city attorney’s
recommendation that the City ordinances be amended to adopt the state statutory scheme by reference
and repeal the prohibition on dangerous dogs in § 91.36.
If approved, any dangerous dog must be in a proper enclosure while on the owner’s property. If outside
the proper enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash. Owner must
display a warning symbol, supplied by the City, that there is a dangerous dog on the premise. Also, all
dangerous dogs must be annually registered in the City and have a tag affixed to their collar reflecting
their dangerous dog registration. The City will have a map on the City’s website showing the
registered sites of both potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs. Failure of this ordinance, per
State Statue, a dangerous dog can be seized if it is not maintained in a proper enclosure, or if it is not
properly restrained (i.e. muzzled) when off the property.
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 $500; and
(4) the owner has had a microchip implanted in the dangerous dog and provided the details to the City.
Traditionally, when we amend the City Code, the City Council has a reading of the proposed changes
at three consecutive City Council meetings and the amendment become official after being published
in the designated official newspaper. The first reading was at the August 11, 2020 City Council
meeting. Tonight (August 25 2020) serves as the second reading with the September 8, 2020 City
Council meeting serving as the final reading and adoption.
At the first reading a question was raised who deems what is a “proper enclosure”. A “property
enclosure” per State Statue is defined as 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
35
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. Chief of Police or designee would determine if the enclosure is appropriate.
Attachments: July 28, 2020 Review of Dangerous Dog Ordinance memo
Animal Control Ordinance - Redline
36
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.
37
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
38
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.
39
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
40
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
41
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
42
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.
43
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-02
SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MULTIPLE SECTIONS IN CHAPTER 91 OF THE ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village ordains as follows:
Section One. Amendment to the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code amending multiple sections in
Chapter 91 of the Animal Control Ordinance of the City Code of the City of Saint Anthony Village is hereby amended
as follows. The deleted language is represented by strikethrough text. The additional language is represented by
single underlined text.
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
44
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 per fee schedule [$XXX/determined by the City Manager].
(1993 Code, § 1205.02) (Am. Ord. 08-007, passed 12-8-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 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)
45
§ 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
46
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)
47
§ 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
48
Section Two. Effective Date. This Ordinance amendment shall be in full force and effect upon its publication
as provided by law.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective as of its publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Adopted:
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
By:_________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:_________________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Publish: Star Tribune
Publication Date:
49
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
50
Website May June July
Total Visitors 2257 2785 1758
St. Anthony/CTV Landing
(Page Views) 84 99 75
St. Anthony – Meeting 134 113 218
St. Anthony – City Council 60 78 183
July 2020
Programming, Website & Social Media
Social Media May June July
CTV Facebook posts 103 84 98
CTV Facebook Total Likes 1559 1606 1621
PROGRAMMING
• PRODUCTION SERVICES:
• CTV Points of Light Signature program, 7/20 [390 Facebook views]
{featuring local places of worship}
• NEW PROGRAMS on CTV CHANNELS (120 Total) = 117 hours of programming
• CITY MEETINGS (38 Total): 2 – St. Anthony city meetings + web streams
• NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION July 16 [135 Facebook views]
• RAMSEY COUNTY BOARD MEETINGS: 4, [LIVE Tuesdays, Ch. 19 – 9am]
• SA 281 SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS: 0 in July, [Live Ch. 19 & web]
• RICE CREEK WATERSHED Meetings: 2, 7/8 & 7/22
• ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING:
• Chamber Check In (4 shows LIVE on Ch15/859 + Facebook Fridays @ 11:30a)
partnership w/TC North Chamber {avg. 250-270 Facebook views per show}
• Cities Speak (5 shows) featuring city and communications officials
[Peter Lindstrom, Emily Dunsworth, Tara Jebens-Singh]
• Governor’s Press Conference (Spanish/Hmong/Somali translation) 7/22 & 7/30
• Candidates Speak Out: House 38B, 41A, 41B, 42A, 42B, 66A; Senate 38, 41, 42,
43, 66; County Commissioner D1, D2, D7 {all on CTV website}
51
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
52
Date Type Staff Present
August 31 Special
5:30 p.m.Worksession
City Council
City Manager
September 8 Regular
Planning Commission items from August
2021 Preliminary Operating Budget and Levy-Public Hearing
Kiwanis Peanut Day
Dangerous Dog Ordinance- final reading & adoption
Organized Collection Contract
Union Contracts
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
September 22 Regular
Fire Prevention Presentation
Night to Unite Presentation
Night to Unite Proclamation
Spirit of St. Anthony Award
Rescind Peacetime emergencies
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
Police Chief
October 13 Regular
Planning Commission items from September
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Waste Hauler Accounts-Consent Agenda
Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts-Consent Agenda
Quarterly Goals Update
City Council
City Manager
October 27 Regular Approval of CIP
1st Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater-Public Hearing
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
November 10 Regular
Planning Commission items from October
75th Anniversary
2nd Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater
Authorizing polling places for 2021
Declaring members of AB Ballot Board for 2021
City Council
City Manager
November 24 Regular
Fire Prevention Poster Winners
Water Conservation Poster Winners
Final Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater
2021 Fee Schedule
Students in Government Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
Public Works Director
December 8 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 2021 City & HRA Budgets and Final Property Tax Levy -Public Hearing
2021 Street Project Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Approval of 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan (motion only)
Body Camera Audit
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
City Engineer
December 22 Regular City Council
City Manager
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
2021
2020
53
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
January 12 Regular
Planning Commission items from December
Housekeeping Resolutions
Resolution for the Street Improvement Bond Reimbursement
Quarterly Donations & Grants
City Council
City Manager
January 26 Regular
Public Works Snow Plowing Operations presentation
NYFS Agreement
Winterfest
Outside Orgs-Council
City Council
City Manager
February 9 Regular Planning Commission items from January
2021 Planning Commission Work Plan- (motion only)
City Council
City Manager
February 23 Regular
Administration Annual Report
Adoption of Strategic Plan
2021 Parks and Environmental Commission Work Plan- (motion only)
2021 Street Project Call for Hearing on Improvements, Call for Hearing on Assessments,
Order Preparation of Assessments
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
March 9 Regular
Planning Commission Items from February
Liquor Annual Report
Liquor License Renewals
GreenCorp Member application-resolution
CTV Presentation
Public Works Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
Liquor Op Manager
Public Works Director
March 23 Regular
Police Annual Report
Wyland Water Challenge
Public Hearing-Budget Calendar
City Council
City Manager
Police Dept
Finance Director
April 13 Regular
Planning Commission Items from March
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Fire Annual Report
Spirit of St. Anthony Award
2021 Street Project Public Hearing, Order Improvements, Adopt & Confirm Assessments,
Award Contract for Construction, Call for Sale of GO Bonds
Arbor Day Proclamation
Earth Day Proclamation
Public Hearing-Budget Calendar
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
City Engineer
April 27 Regular 2020 Street Project-Approve Sale of Bonds City Council
City Manager
May 11 Regular
Planning Commission items from April
Insurance Renewal
Tort Limits - Consent
Order 2022 Feasibility Study
Police Department Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
May 25 Regular
Salo Park Concert Series
Chamber of the Year and Business of the Year
Finance Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
54
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
June 8 Regular Planning Commission Items from May City Council
City Manager
June 22 Regular Audit Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
July 13 Regular
Planning Commission items from June
Quarterly Donations & Grants
City Council
City Manager
July 27 Regular
Liquor Operations Mid Year Report
VillageFest Presentation
Quarterly Goals Update
Wyland Mayor's Water Challenge
City Council
City Manager
Liquor Op Mgr
August 10 Regular Planning Commission items from July
Approve 2022 Feasibility Study and Order Plans and Specs
City Council
City Manager
August 24 Regular
Budget Presentation
Students in Leadership-Consent
SANB #282 Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
55