HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 10252022CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 7:00PM
Join Meeting via Zoom
There is also a dial -in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so
in person.
Call To Order.
Pledge Of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Approval Of Agenda.
Proclamations And Recognitions.
Consent Agenda.
Approval Of CC Meeting Minutes
CC 10 -11 -2022.PDF
License And Permits
LICENSEANDPERMITS .PDF
Claims
10 -26 -22.PDF
Resolution 22 -074 - Accepting And Approving The Grant Agreement Between The
City Of St. Anthony Village And The Ramsey County Housing And
Redevelopment Authority Environmental Response Funds Program
COVER MEMO.PDF
AGREEMENT.PDF
RESOLUTION 22 -074.PDF
Public Hearing.
Reports From Commission And Staff.
Dog Park Feasibility
Jeremy Gumke, Public Works Director, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
DOG PARK SUGGESTION.PDF
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR DOG PARK SITE
SELECTION UPDATED 4 -10 -....PDF
General Business Of Council.
Resolution 22 -075 - Approving The City Of St. Anthony's Participation In A Joint
Powers Agreement For A Fence Consortium With Several Hennepin County
Police Agencies
Jeff Spiess, Police Captain, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
PRESENTATION.PDF
AGREEMENT.PDF
RESOLUTION 22 -075.PDF
Approving Of Capital Improvement Plan For 2023 -2027 & 2028 -2039
Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director, presenting.
PRESENTATION.PDF
2022 Goals Update
Charlie Yunker, City Manager, presenting.
2022 GOALS CHART.PDF
Reports From City Manager And Council Members.
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.
Information And Announcements.
Future Agenda Items
Next Meeting:
November 8 -8:00PM (Time Change due to Elections)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF
Adjournment
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.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
D.
Documents:
VII.
VIII.
A.
Documents:
IX.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
X.
XI.
XII.
A.
Documents:
XIII.
1
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGECITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDATuesday, October 25, 2022 at 7:00PMJoin Meeting via ZoomThere is also a dial -in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Call To Order.Pledge Of Allegiance.Roll Call.Approval Of Agenda.Proclamations And Recognitions.Consent Agenda.Approval Of CC Meeting MinutesCC 10 -11 -2022.PDFLicense And PermitsLICENSEANDPERMITS .PDFClaims10-26 -22.PDFResolution 22 -074 - Accepting And Approving The Grant Agreement Between The City Of St. Anthony Village And The Ramsey County Housing And Redevelopment Authority Environmental Response Funds Program
COVER MEMO.PDF
AGREEMENT.PDF
RESOLUTION 22 -074.PDF
Public Hearing.
Reports From Commission And Staff.
Dog Park Feasibility
Jeremy Gumke, Public Works Director, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
DOG PARK SUGGESTION.PDF
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR DOG PARK SITE
SELECTION UPDATED 4 -10 -....PDF
General Business Of Council.
Resolution 22 -075 - Approving The City Of St. Anthony's Participation In A Joint
Powers Agreement For A Fence Consortium With Several Hennepin County
Police Agencies
Jeff Spiess, Police Captain, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
PRESENTATION.PDF
AGREEMENT.PDF
RESOLUTION 22 -075.PDF
Approving Of Capital Improvement Plan For 2023 -2027 & 2028 -2039
Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director, presenting.
PRESENTATION.PDF
2022 Goals Update
Charlie Yunker, City Manager, presenting.
2022 GOALS CHART.PDF
Reports From City Manager And Council Members.
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.
Information And Announcements.
Future Agenda Items
Next Meeting:
November 8 -8:00PM (Time Change due to Elections)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF
Adjournment
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.
I.II.III.IV.V.VI.A.Documents:B.Documents:C.Documents:D.Documents:
VII.
VIII.
A.
Documents:
IX.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
C.
Documents:
X.
XI.
XII.
A.
Documents:
XIII.
2
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGECITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDATuesday, October 25, 2022 at 7:00PMJoin Meeting via ZoomThere is also a dial -in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Call To Order.Pledge Of Allegiance.Roll Call.Approval Of Agenda.Proclamations And Recognitions.Consent Agenda.Approval Of CC Meeting MinutesCC 10 -11 -2022.PDFLicense And PermitsLICENSEANDPERMITS .PDFClaims10-26 -22.PDFResolution 22 -074 - Accepting And Approving The Grant Agreement Between The City Of St. Anthony Village And The Ramsey County Housing And Redevelopment Authority Environmental Response Funds ProgramCOVER MEMO.PDFAGREEMENT.PDFRESOLUTION 22 -074.PDFPublic Hearing.Reports From Commission And Staff.Dog Park FeasibilityJeremy Gumke, Public Works Director, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFDOG PARK SUGGESTION.PDFRECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR DOG PARK SITE SELECTION UPDATED 4 -10 -....PDFGeneral Business Of Council.Resolution 22 -075 - Approving The City Of St. Anthony's Participation In A Joint Powers Agreement For A Fence Consortium With Several Hennepin County Police AgenciesJeff Spiess, Police Captain, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFPRESENTATION.PDFAGREEMENT.PDFRESOLUTION 22 -075.PDFApproving Of Capital Improvement Plan For 2023 -2027 & 2028 -2039Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director, presenting.PRESENTATION.PDF2022 Goals UpdateCharlie Yunker, City Manager, presenting.2022 GOALS CHART.PDFReports From City Manager And Council Members.Community ForumIndividuals 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.
Information And Announcements.
Future Agenda Items
Next Meeting:
November 8 -8:00PM (Time Change due to Elections)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF
Adjournment
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.
I.II.III.IV.V.VI.A.Documents:B.Documents:C.Documents:D.Documents:VII.VIII.A.Documents:IX.A.Documents:B.Documents:C.Documents:X.XI.
XII.
A.
Documents:
XIII.
3
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
4
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
3 OCTOBER 11, 2022
4
5 CALL TO ORDER.
6
7 Mayor Stille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
8
9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
10
11 Mayor Stille invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
12
13 ROLL CALL.
14
15 Present: Mayor Stille, Councilmembers Jenson, Randle, Walker and Webster
16
17 Absent:None
18
19 Also Present:City Manager Charlie Yunker and City Planner Steve Grittman,
20
21 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
22 ITEMS.
23
24 I.APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 11, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA.
25
26 Motion by Councilmember Randle, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve the City
27 Council Meeting Agenda of October 11, 2022 as presented.
28
29 Motion carried 5-0.
30
31 II.PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITION – NONE.
32
33 III.CONSENT AGENDA.
34
A.35 Approval of September 27, 2022 City Council Meeting Minutes.
B.36 Licenses and Permits.
C.37 Claims.
D.38 Resolution 22-066 – Approving 3rd Quarter Donations and Grants.
E.39 Resolution 22-067 – Approving a Request to Keep Six (6) Female Chickens in an R-1
40 Zoning District at 2601 St. Anthony Blvd.
F.41 Resolution 22-068 – Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Waste Hauler
42 Accounts to the 2023 Hennepin County Tax Rolls.
G.43 Resolution 22-069 – Certifying Special Assessments for the Delinquent Public Utility
44 Service Accounts to the 2023 Hennepin County Tax Rolls.
H.45 Resolution 22-070 – Certifying Special Assessments for the Delinquent Public Utility
46 Service Accounts to the 2023 Ramsey County Tax Rolls.
47
48 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Webster, to approve the
49 Consent Agenda items.
5
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 11, 2022
Page 2
1 Motion carried 5-0.
2
3 IV.PUBLIC HEARING – NONE.
4
5 V.REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF.
6
A.7 Resolution 22-071 – Approving a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Financial
8 Institution with Drive-Through in the Silver Lake PUD Zoning District.
9
10 City Planner Grittman reviewed the applicants are the owners of the property (Sterling
11 Organization), representing Chase Bank as a new construction tenant. The project involves
12 amending a PUD zoning district to accommodate a new banking facility with a Drive-Through
13 facility. The developer proposes to construct a new bank facility on a portion of the former
14 Walmart parking lot, now a separate parcel in front of the “Ruby” multi-family residential
15 building.
16
17 The building is a 3,308 square foot structure that would sit on the south half of what is currently
18 a vacant paved space. The applicant proposed to remove the existing asphalt and concrete on that
19 portion of the site – the plans indicate that the northerly portion of the site would be subject to
20 the property owner’s separate work.
21
22 Banking and other financial institutions are permitted uses in the Commercial District generally,
23 and in the Silver Lake PUD specifically. The drive-through facility requires a separate
24 Conditional Use Permit. As such, the request for a Conditional Use incorporates an amendment
25 to the Silver Lake PUD District. In this case, the drive-through facility serves an ATM, and there
26 is no drive-through teller window.
27
28 Mr. Grittman noted that the project construction limits relate to the south portion of the existing
29 parcel. No subdivision is being proposed at this time, and the northerly portion of the site has no
30 specific plans for modification as a part of this request.
31
32 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed application on September 20,
33 2022. No one from the public was present to speak to the proposal, and the applicant was
34 represented by a member of its consulting/design team. The Planning Commission discussed the
35 item, asked questions of staff and the applicant. The Commission commented as to access into
36 and out of the site, and screening and setback distances from the Ruby apartment building.
37 Following up on a specific question raised by the Commission, the distance from the Ruby
38 building to the property line is approximately 45 feet, and an additional 70 feet from the property
39 line is proposed to the corner of the drive-through portion of the Chase building. After the
40 hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal.
41
42 Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s
43 Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the C, Commercial District as a baseline.
44 In summary, the Comprehensive Plan promotes use of the subject properties that reflect the
45 proposed commercial uses in the area. The proposed Conditional Use Permit PUD meets the
6
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 11, 2022
Page 3
1 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the baseline district zoning standards. There are no
2 areas requested for PUD flexibility.
3
4 As such, planning staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to amend the Silver
5 Lake PUD district as proposed for the banking facility with a drive-through window and lane.
6
7 A drawing indicating the site location was provided for the City Council along with CUP Site
8 and Landscape Plan, and Bank Building Elevations.
9
10 Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval with the following conditions:
11
1.12 The applicant provides signage details consistent with the City’s sign ordinance for separate
13 permitting. This condition includes a requirement for removal of the non-
14 conforming/abandoned former “Walmart” sign on the northeast corner of the subject parcel,
15 and incorporation of the existing monument sign on the Chase portion of the project site,
16 along the primary entrance road.
17
2.18 Access easements are updated as necessary to ensure access and cross use of common private
19 streets in the PUD.
20
3.21 The applicant provides plans for the proposed trash enclosure verifying consistency of
22 materials between the enclosure and the principal building.
23
4.24 Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and
25 recommendation by the City Engineer.
26
5.27 Consideration of comments of other City Staff.
28
29 This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposal, with the conditions cited, is
30 consistent with the requirements for Conditional Use Permit and PUD consideration, with the
31 long-term objectives of the recommendations and policies of the St. Anthony Comprehensive
32 Plan.
33
34 Councilmember Randle stated this project is pretty timely and is an excellent location.
35
36 Mayor Stille stated this is the fifth bank in town. It has good location and access.
37
38 Councilmember Walker stated this is a good location and the closest location is 4 miles away
39 from St. Anthony.
40
41 Councilmember Jenson stated he is in favor of the project.
42
43 Motion by Councilmember Randle, seconded by Councilmember Webster, to approve
44 Resolution 22-071 – A Resolution Approving a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
45 Financial Institution with Drive-through in the Silver Lake PUD Zoning District.
46
7
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 11, 2022
Page 4
1 Motion carried 5-0.
2
3 VI.GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL.
4
A.5 Ordinance 2022-07 – An Ordinance Amending the St. Anthony City Code, by Amending
6 Sections 91.06, 91.56, 91.57 Relating to Keeping and Feeding of Animals; Section 94.15
7 and 96.02 Relating to the Use of the Public Right of Way; Section 96.03 Relating to
8 Private Bus and Transit Benches; Section 150.070 – 150.073, Relating to Allowable
9 Residential Fence Height and Measurement.
10
11 City Planner Grittman reviewed this is for the 3rd reading of the current round of City Code
12 updates. The Council previously passed the 1st and 2nd readings. With approval of this reading,
13 the amendments would be ready for adoption, according to the Ordinance that is provided.
14
15 Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopts the proposed
16 amendments to the City Code in the Ordinance and the table-form redline version.
17
18 Mayor Stille thanked the Code Committee for their work on this. It makes Richard’s life much
19 easier when he has to enforce the Code.
20
21 Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve Third and
22 Final Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 2022-07 – Ordinance 2022-07 – An Ordinance
23 Amending the St. Anthony City Code, by Amending: Sections 91.06, 91.56, 91.57 Relating to
24 Keeping and Feeding of Animals; Section 94.15 and 96.02 Relating to the Use of the Public
25 Right of Way; Section 96.03 Relating to Private Bus and Transit Benches; Section 150.070 –
26 150.073, Relating to Allowable Residential Fence Height and Measurement.
27
28 Motion carried 5-0.
29
B.30 Resolution 22-072 Approving Summary Publication for Ordinance 2022-07.
31
32 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Randle, to approve Resolution
33 22-072 Approving Summary Publication for Ordinance 2022-07.
34
35 Motion carried 5-0.
36
C.37 Ordinance 2022-06 – An Ordinance Amending the St. Anthony City Code, By Amending
38 Section 150.070, Relating to Allowable Residential Fence Height and Measurement.
39
40 City Planner Grittman reviewed since the Council has conducted two prior readings of
41 Ordinance 2022-07 as now written, staff believes that it would be appropriate to dismiss action
42 on Ordinance 2022-06 (the Tomas application version) with the height specification as moot.
43 Therefore the requested Council Action recommends dismissing Ordinance 2022-06.
44
45 Motion by Councilmember Randle, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to dismiss Ordinance
46 No. 2022-06 as moot, related to the residential fence height and measurement in Section
47
8
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 11, 2022
Page 5
1 150.070, based on the finding that the proposed change has been incorporated into a prior
2 adopted amendment as Ordinance No. 2022.07.
3
4 Motion carried 5-0.
5
D.6 Resolution 22-073 – Authorizing Final Contract Negotiations with Aspen Waste
7 Services, Inc. for Solid Waste and Recycling Services.
8
9 City Manager Yunker reviewed the current organized collection contract for solid waste and
10 recycling ends April 1, 2023. Staff has engaged in discussion with the Council on desires for the
11 next solid waste and recycling contract. The following items were identified to be
12 included/revised from the previous RFP:
13 Seek proposals from a single hauler to service the whole City.
14 Curbside organics collection.
15 Weekly recycling collection.
16
17 Also included in the RFP are:
18 Inclusion of collection of waste and recycling for all City facilities.
19 Inclusion of hauler-staffed Spring Clean-Up Event.
20 Separation of refuse collection and disposal prices for increased transparency.
21
22 The City received two proposals for the next solid waste and recycling contract. Those proposals
23 were from Walters Recycling and Refuse and Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. A Proposal Review
24 Committee reviewed the proposals submitted and evaluated the following areas:
25 Disruption of service.
26 Experience and Capacity.
27 Thoroughness and Responsiveness to RFP.
28 References.
29
30 Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC. provided financial analysis and comparisons to the
31 Committee for both proposals. The Committee formulated follow-up questions for both haulers
32 prior to in-person interviews. These additional questions as well as the in-person interview
33 allowed the Committee to dive deeper into conversation with the haulers on items such as
34 customer service, organics and pricing.
35
36 The Committee’s recommendation the City Council authorize final contract negotiations with
37 Aspen Waste Services Inc. for Solid Waste and Recycling Services. Mr. Yunker provided a
38 comparison of the two companies along with a cost comparison. The new contract will begin
39 April 1, 2023.
40
41 Councilmember Webster thanked Mr. Yunker for the overview. Does Aspen Waste have any
42 contracts as single hauler and Mr. Yunker stated they are part of other multi-hauler contracts.
43 This would be their first single hauler contract.
44
9
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 11, 2022
Page 6
1 Mayor Stille noted Aspen’s bid is 27% lower than Walters and 8 ½% lower than current contract.
2 He thanked Mr. Yunker and staff for working on this. Aspen has actual people answering their
3 phones.
4
5 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve Resolution
6 22-073 – Authorizing Final Contract Negotiations with Aspen Waste Services, Inc. for Solid
7 Waste and Recycling Services.
8
9 Motion carried 5-0.
10
11 VII.REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
12
13 City Manager Yunker had no report.
14
15 Councilmember Walker stated he attended the Fire Department’s Open House last Saturday and
16 saw a lot of residents there. It was a “warm” experience. The demonstration of closing a door to
17 stop fires was done and it was very informative.
18
19 Councilmember Jenson stated he also attended the Fire Department’s Open House and was very
20 impressed by the number of people in attendance and the various displays presented.
21
22 Councilmember Randle stated on Wednesday October 5 he attended a Sister City Meeting.
23
24 Councilmember Webster had no report.
25
26 Mayor Stille also attended the Fire Department event. He shuts his door before going to bed at
27 night. MWMO had a going-away open house for the Executive Director Doug Schneider.
28
29 VIII.COMMUNITY FORUM.
30
31 No one appeared to address the City Council.
32
33 IX.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE.
34
35 X. ADJOURNMENT.
36
37 Mayor Stille adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
38
39 Respectfully submitted,
40 Debbie Wolfe
41 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
42
43 Mayor
44 ATTEST:
45 City Clerk
46
10
Saint Anthony Village
DATE: October 25, 2022 Approved:
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: License Clerk
ITEM: License and Permits for Approval:
Mechanical Licenses:
Apollo Heating, Air & Plumbing, Maplewood, MN
Midwest Maintenance & Mechanical, Minneapolis, MN
Commercial Rental Licenses:
Applicant:Doran St Anthony LLC
Location:3760 Silver Lake Rd NE
Applicant:G & I X Equinox Apartments
Location:2504 - 2520 Silver Lane NE
Residential Rental Licenses:
Applicant:Jean Kenney
Location:3525 Stinson Blvd NE
Applicant:Eric Jungels
Location:3637 – 3639 Stinson Blvd NE
11
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
12
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 10/14/2022 - 10/26/2022 Oct 19, 2022 02:45PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount
10710 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 10/14/2022 1,155.00
11792 INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL #49 10/14/2022 420.00
11793 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES 10/14/2022 1,105.00
10002 LOCAL UNION IAFF #3486 10/14/2022 333.40
1118 56 BREWING 10/26/2022 212.00
10039 AIRGAS USA LLC 10/26/2022 84.46
1122 AM CRAFTS SPIRITS 10/26/2022 321.47
10073 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN 10/26/2022 450.00
1100 ARTISIAN BEER COMPANY 10/26/2022 6,299.63
10115 ASPEN MILLS 10/26/2022 348.70
1013 BELLBOY CORPORATION 10/26/2022 4,904.90
1014 BELLBOY CORPORATION 10/26/2022 363.25
10172 BIFFS INC.10/26/2022 130.00
2009 BLACK STACK BREWING 10/26/2022 550.00
12526 BONA BROS AUTO & TRUCK SERVICE 10/26/2022 150.00
1018 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER 10/26/2022 22,995.86
1011 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 10/26/2022 8,815.37
1009 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 10/26/2022 1,389.85
10218 BUREAU OF CRIM APPREHENSION 10/26/2022 2,040.00
1017 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 10/26/2022 10,189.10
10252 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 10/26/2022 2,243.75
10254 CENTRAL LOCK & SAFE CO 10/26/2022 26.00
10263 CENTURYLINK 10/26/2022 666.85
12596 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/26/2022 2,395.85
10299 CITY OF ST. PAUL 10/26/2022 267.72
1042 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE 10/26/2022 387.70
12926 DORAN SLV LLC 10/26/2022 144.03
10432 DORSEY & WHITNEY 10/26/2022 1,524.50
2042 ELM CREEK BREWING COMPANY 10/26/2022 320.00
10526 FLEETPRIDE 10/26/2022 1,480.81
13195 FRESH PAINT INC 10/26/2022 4,195.00
10585 GRAINGER 10/26/2022 381.08
1021 GREAT LAKES COCA COLA 10/26/2022 1,187.32
10607 HACH COMPANY 10/26/2022 137.01
10624 HAWKINS INC 10/26/2022 20.00
10642 HENN CNTY INFO TECH DEPT 10/26/2022 4,036.02
10642 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 10/26/2022 1,662.45
10661 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 10/26/2022 600.00
12711 HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE 10/26/2022 910.00
10674 HICKS/ERNEST 10/26/2022 119.99
1019 HOHENSTEIN'S INC 10/26/2022 7,477.70
2013 INBOUND BREWCO 10/26/2022 632.00
12893 INNOVO AUTOMATION 10/26/2022 982.03
10733 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH, INC.10/26/2022 145.00
11754 INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL INC.10/26/2022 636.00
13052 JEFF BELZER'S ROSEVILLE 10/26/2022 501.00
1004 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.10/26/2022 3,838.78
1005 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.10/26/2022 4,781.17
1006 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.10/26/2022 6,616.39
1044 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.10/26/2022 15,066.92
12615 JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION LP 10/26/2022 578.40
10797 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 10/26/2022 244.75
12894 LEAST SERVICE COUNSELING LLC 10/26/2022 320.00
13
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 10/14/2022 - 10/26/2022 Oct 19, 2022 02:45PM
Vendor Number Payee Check Issue Date Amount
2010 LUPULIN BREWING 10/26/2022 1,535.80
12807 MAKE THE MOVE TRAINING LLC 10/26/2022 1,400.00
11985 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 10/26/2022 1,687.54
13188 MCNAMARA CONTRACTING INC 10/26/2022 61,859.30
10937 MIDC ENTERPRISES 10/26/2022 822.45
10939 MIDWAY FORD 10/26/2022 1,302.14
10963 MINNEAPOLIS SAW COMPANY INC 10/26/2022 4.90
12940 MINNEHAHA BLDG MAINTENANCE 10/26/2022 76.95
2006 MODIST BREWING COMPANY 10/26/2022 486.00
11085 MURPHY'S SERVICE CENTER 10/26/2022 11.25
1051 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY 10/26/2022 1,278.00
13107 NORMS TIRE SALES 10/26/2022 1,329.76
12779 OPTION ONE MECHANICAL LLC 10/26/2022 256.50
11185 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC.10/26/2022 329.06
1012 PAUSTIS & SONS 10/26/2022 3,061.00
1001 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 10/26/2022 6,102.78
1002 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 10/26/2022 5,256.56
2043 PORTAGE BREWING COMPANY 10/26/2022 375.00
2019 PRYES BREWING COMPANY 10/26/2022 937.00
1062 RED BULL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY 10/26/2022 155.52
13213 RJM CONSTRUCTION LLC BREMER BANK 10/26/2022 475.47
11399 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.10/26/2022 664.12
2018 SMALL LOT WINES 10/26/2022 298.00
1024 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 10/26/2022 1,821.29
1008 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 10/26/2022 4,561.18
1026 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 10/26/2022 19,724.60
1036 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 10/26/2022 1,105.69
12760 SSI MN TRANCHE 1 LLC 10322006 10/26/2022 966.26
11485 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT 10/26/2022 125.00
2001 STEEL TOE BREWING 10/26/2022 348.00
11513 SULLIVAN, TOM 10/26/2022 125.00
12123 SUMMIT COMPANIES 10/26/2022 2,475.75
11566 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 10/26/2022 498.50
11595 TRI STATE BOBCAT, INC.10/26/2022 3,600.00
11819 TRUE NORTH ELECTRIC 10/26/2022 596.10
11626 U.S. BANK (PURCHASING CARD)10/26/2022 15,040.86
12776 USS MINNESOTA ONE MT LLC 10/26/2022 5,476.33
11674 VERIZON WIRELESS 10/26/2022 89.99
1025 VINOCOPIA 10/26/2022 736.75
1034 WINE COMPANY THE 10/26/2022 1,536.20
1038 WINE MERCHANTS INC 10/26/2022 1,278.85
1032 WINEBOW 10/26/2022 1,251.25
11704 WM CORPORATE SERVICES INC 10/26/2022 1,373.44
Grand Totals: 279,220.35
14
October 19, 2022
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Staff
C/O Charlie Yunker, City Manager
City of St. Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road NE
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Re: Resolution Accepting and Approving the Grant Agreement for the
Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Environmental Response Funds Program (ERF)
St. Anthony Village, MN
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Staff:
Attached for your consideration is a resolution authorizing the application for grant monies from
the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority Environmental Response Funds
Program (ERF).
This program provides resources to municipalities within Ramsey County to offset the cost of
environmental assessment and cleanup. The ERF program was created to mitigate brownfield
sites and foster redevelopment. The Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
has awarded the City of St. Anthony Village $40,000 in ERF funds for the former Bear Stop
Gas Station site located at 3803 Stinson Blvd. The funds received will be used to prepare a
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Asbestos and Regulated Material
Assessment (ARM), Response Action Plan (RAP) and a Construction Contingency Plan
(CCP).
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Justin Messner, PE
City Engineer
Attachments
cc: Jeremy Gumke, City of St. Anthony Village
Nicole Miller, City of St. Anthony Village
15
1
GRANT AGREEMENT
This Grant Agreement is entered into on this ______ day of _____________, 2022, by
and between Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, a political subdivision of
the State of Minnesota, 250 Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota,
55102, and City of Saint Anthony Village, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 3301 Silver Lake
Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418.
RECITALS
A.Grantee has applied to Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority for a grant in
an amount not to exceed Forty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($40,000.00), the proceeds of
which are to be used to carry out activities pursuant to the eligibility requirements of the
Ramsey County Environmental Response Fund program for remediation activities at the
3803 Stinson Boulevard site in the City of St. Anthony; and
B.Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority has agreed to make the grant on
terms as set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set
forth in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:
1.DEFINITIONS; INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND EXHIBITS.
A.The following terms when used in this Agreement have the following meanings, except
where the context otherwise requires.
“Agreement” means this Grant Agreement.
“Application” means that application dated May 2, 2022, submitted by Grantee to
County, as it may have been amended, and any documents related to the Remediation
Activities submitted by the Grantee to the County after that date, which is
incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
“County” means Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
“Grantee” means City of Saint Anthony Village, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
“Environmental Response Funds Program (ERF)” means the program created to mitigate
brownfield sites and foster redevelopment using funds obtained from a mortgage
registry and deed taxes imposed upon transferred properties in Ramsey County.
“Grant Funds” means the $40,000.00 in ERF funds available for disbursement by County
to the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement.
“Project” means the 3803 Stinson Boulevard site in the City of St. Anthony, Minnesota.
16
2
“Property” means the real property located in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota
that is legally described in Exhibit A.
“Remediation Activities” means the environmental remediation activities at the Project,
as identified in the Application.
B.The Recitals made at the beginning of this Agreement, and the Exhibits that are attached
to this Agreement, are true and correct and, by this reference, are incorporated into and
made a part of this Agreement.
2.DOCUMENTS DELIVERED WITH THIS AGREEMENT.
Prior to, or contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Grantee has delivered to
County the following documents and/or instruments, each of which will be in a form acceptable
to County.
A.Evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Agreement in a form acceptable to
County, to be submitted on an annual basis on the anniversary date of this Agreement.
B.The certification regarding debarment, suspension, ineligibility, and voluntary exclusion
– lower tier covered transactions as set forth in Exhibit B.
C.Ramsey County Prevailing Wage Certification as set forth in Exhibit C.
3.REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES.
In order to induce County to enter into this Agreement, Grantee affirmatively represents and
warrants that:
A.Grantee has full power, right, and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement, and
the other documents required by this Agreement, to receive the funds provided in this
Agreement for, and to perform and observe each and all of the matters and things
provided for in said documents. The execution and delivery of this Agreement, and such
other documents as are required by this Agreement, and the performance or observance
of the terms of such documents have been duly authorized by all necessary action of
Grantee.
B.There are no actions, suits, or proceedings pending or, to the best knowledge of Grantee,
threatened against or affecting Grantee, or involving the validity or enforceability of this
Agreement, or the priority of any lien of the same, at law or in equity; and Grantee is not
in default with respect to any order, writ, injunction, decree, or demand of any court or
any governmental authority.
C.The consummation of this transaction and performance of Grantee’s obligations under
17
3
this Agreement will not result in any breach of, or constitute a default under any
mortgage, deed of trust, lease, bank loan or credit agreement, corporate charter, by-law,
or other instrument to which Grantee is a party or by which it may be bound or affected.
D.All financial statements delivered to the County prior to and as part of this transaction are
true and correct in all respects and fairly present the respective financial conditions of the
subjects of such statements as of the respective dates of the same; no materially adverse
change has occurred in the financial conditions reflected in those statements since the
respective dates of such statements, and no additional borrowings have been made by
Grantee since the date of such statements other than borrowings previously approved in
writing by County.
E.All federal, state, and other tax returns of Grantee required by law to be filed have been
duly filed; and all federal, state, and other taxes, assessments, and governmental charges
upon Grantee which to the knowledge of Grantee are due and payable have been paid.
F.All building permits required for construction of all improvements to the Property will be
obtained prior to the commencement of any construction, and Grantee will comply with
all conditions set forth in such permits.
G.To the best of Grantee’s knowledge, the Project will be free of Hazardous Substances
upon completion of construction and is not subject to any “Super Fund” type liens or
claims by governmental regulatory agencies or other third-parties arising from the release
or threatened release of Hazardous Substances in, on or about the Property. Grantee also
represents and warrants it has not used the Property in connection with the generation,
disposal, storage, treatment, or transportation of Hazardous Substances and that the
Property will not be so used during the term of this Agreement by Grantee, its agents,
tenants or assigns.
H.No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by, or on behalf of, Grantee
to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the wording of any federal
contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering
into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment
or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. If any
funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a
member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member
of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement, Grantee will complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, “Disclosure Form to
Report Lobbying”, in accordance with its instructions. Grantee will include the language
with this certification in all subcontracts.
4.COMMITMENT OF COUNTY.
18
4
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and other documents delivered with this
Agreement, County agrees to grant Grantee up to a maximum amount of Forty Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($40,000.00). The County will have no obligation to disburse any of these funds
if, at the time of disbursement, Grantee is in default under any of the terms of this Agreement.
5.AFFIRMATIVE COVENANTS.
To further induce County to make the requested grant, Grantee affirmatively covenants and
agrees that it will:
A.Provide a copy of the No Further Action Determination letter for the Project issued by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to Authority by December 31, 2034.
B.Not knowingly allow any person who exercises any functions or responsibilities in
connection with the oversight of ERF funding at the county level to have any financial
interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, and Grantee will not acquire or hold any
interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Grantee further covenants that in
the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, no person having any
conflicting interest will be employed.
C.In awarding contracts pursuant to this Agreement, comply with all applicable
requirements of local and state law for awarding contracts, including, but not limited to,
procedures for competitive bidding, contractor’s bonds, and retained percentages. Where
federal standards differ from local or state standards, the stricter standards will apply.
D.Conform with the applicable labor laws of the State of Minnesota, and all other
applicable laws, ordinances, and legal requirements affecting the work in Ramsey County
and Minnesota. As to the Remediation Activities, conform to the Ramsey County
Prevailing Wage Ordinance No. 2013-329. The minimum wage rate per hour to be paid
for each classification of work must be the union wage rate in the locality of the Project
for those classifications over which the unions have jurisdiction and the local prevailing
rate for those classifications of work in the localities over which the unions do not have
jurisdiction. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in civil or criminal
penalties.
The terms "prevailing wage", "minimum wage rate per hour", and "prevailing rate" as
used in the contract, means "prevailing wage rate" as defined in Minnesota Statutes
§177.42.
Throughout the term of this Agreement, Grantee is required to submit Certified Payroll
Records within 14 days of the end of a pay period and in accordance with the
requirements of Ramsey County Prevailing Wage Ordinance No. 2013-329. Failure of
the Grantee to submit the Certified Payroll Records in accordance with the Ordinance
may result in criminal or civil enforcement by the County, including, but not limited to
termination of the agreement for cause, withholding of payments, and assessment of
19
5
liquidated damages.
E.Upon the expenditure of all funds covered by this Agreement, Grantee is required to
submit a report to County describing the completed clean-up work and a financial
summary of all sources and uses of funds for the Remediation Activities. Upon the date
of issuance of the No Further Action Determination letter issued by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Grantee is required to provide a final report with a detailed
accounting of all expenses associated with the clean-up of the Property and addressing
the outcomes, including but not limited to the following criteria intended to maximize
public investment: a) a detailed list of all new jobs being created including position
description and annual wage and benefit package (retained and/or relocated jobs should
be listed separately and include the same information); b) a detailed accounting of
expenses associated with acquisition, clean-up, construction and marketing of the site; c)
a detailed description of Grantee’s efforts made to ensure that buildings constructed or
improved at this site are energy efficient and high performance.
6.NEGATIVE COVENANTS.
Grantee covenants and agrees that for so long as it is indebted to County, it will not, without
County’s prior written consent:
A.Use the Property or allow its assigns or tenants to use the Property in connection with the
generation, disposal, storage, treatment, or transportation of hazardous substances as
defined by state and federal law, provided, however, that Grantee, its assigns or tenants
may use, store and transport hazardous substances on, over or across the Property as is
reasonably necessary to the use of the Property provided such use, storage and
transportation complies at all times with all applicable federal, state and local statutes,
codes, regulations and ordinances.
B.Without the prior written consent of the County, which consent will not be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned, or delayed, sell, transfer, assign, convey, mortgage, pledge, grant a
security interest in, or otherwise transfer or encumber all or any part of the Property or
any interest in the Property at any time that the Property is subject to this Agreement.
7. MISCELLANEOUS.
A.All representations, warranties, and covenants contained in this Agreement or made in
writing by or on behalf of Grantee in connection with the transactions contemplated by
this Agreement will survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement, and the
exercise of any rights or remedies by County. All statements contained in any certificate
or other instrument delivered by or on behalf of Grantee pursuant to such certificate or
other instrument, or in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement
will constitute representations and warranties by Grantee.
B.This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns of the parties to this Agreement, except that Grantee’s rights under this
20
6
Agreement are not assignable without the prior written consent of County, which will not
be unreasonably withheld. Without limiting the discretion otherwise afforded the County
in granting or withholding its consent to such an assignment, the parties agree that such
consent may be withheld in regard to any such assignment which County finds to be
inconsistent with the purposes for which the grant which is the subject of this Agreement
was made.
C.No amendment, change, waiver, or modification of this Agreement will be valid unless
the same be in writing and signed by all of the Parties.
D.No waiver by County of any breach or default by Grantee of any of its obligations,
agreements, or covenants under this Agreement will be deemed to be a waiver of any
subsequent breach of the same, or any other obligation, agreement, or covenant, nor will
any forbearance by County to seek or enforce a remedy for such breach be deemed a
waiver of its rights and remedies with respect to such breach.
E.This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of
which will be an original, but all of which will constitute one agreement.
F.This Agreement will remain effective until all obligations required by Grantee by the
terms of this Agreement are met.
G.This Agreement from and after the date of execution supersedes and has merged into it
all prior oral and written agreements on the same subjects by or between the Parties with
the effect that this Agreement, and the documents delivered pursuant to this Agreement,
will control the subject matter covered in this Agreement.
H.Any notices required or contemplated under this Agreement will be effective upon the
placing of such notice in the United States mails, certified mail, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
If to Grantee:
City of Saint Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
If to the County:
Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Office of the County Manager
250 Ramsey County Courthouse
St. Paul, MN 55102
With a courtesy copy to:
21
7
Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, Civil Division
ATTN: HRA Attorney
121 Seventh Place East, Suite 4500
St. Paul, MN 55101
I.The County makes no commitment to future support and assumes no obligation for future
support of the activities contracted for in this Agreement, except as expressly set forth in
this Agreement.
J.If any provision of this Agreement is held unlawful or unenforceable in any respect, such
illegality or unenforceability will not affect any other provisions of this Agreement, and
this Agreement will be construed as if the unlawful or unenforceable provisions had
never been contained in this Agreement.
K.The headings used in this Agreement are for the convenience of reference only and are
not of substantive effect.
L.This Agreement will be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of
Minnesota. All litigation regarding this Agreement will be venued in the appropriate
state or federal district court in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
M.The Grant Agreement will be prepared by or reviewed by County’s legal counsel and all
documents must be satisfactory to County in its sole discretion.
N.It is agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed
as creating the relationship of agents, partners, joint venturers, or associates between the
Parties or as constituting the Grantee as the employee of the County for any purpose or in
any manner whatsoever. The Grantee is an independent contractor and neither it, its
employees, agents nor representatives are employees of the County.
8. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION.
A.The Grantee further agrees that it is financially responsible (liable) for any audit
exception which occurs due to its negligence or failure to comply with the terms of the
Agreement.
B.Grantee agrees to hold harmless and defend Ramsey County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, Ramsey County, its officials, officers, employees, agents,
representatives, customers, or invitees against any and all claims, lawsuits, damages, or
lawsuits for damages arising from or allegedly arising from or related to the Grantee’s
acts, failure to act, or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and to pay
the costs of and/or reimburse Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
Ramsey County, its officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, customers, or
invitees for any and all liability, costs, and expenses (including without limitation
reasonable attorney’s fees) incurred in connection with such claims, lawsuits, damages,
or lawsuits for damages. County will promptly notify Grantee of any claim made for any
22
8
such damage or loss and afford Grantee and its counsel the opportunity to contest,
compromise, or settle such claim.
9.INSURANCE.
A.Grantee will purchase and maintain such insurance as will protect it from claims which
may arise out of, or result from, its operations related to this Agreement, whether such
operations be by the Grantee or by any subcontractor, or by anyone directly employed by
them, or by anyone for whose acts any one of them may be liable.
B.Grantee will secure the following coverages and comply with all provisions noted.
Certificates of Insurance will be issued evidencing such coverage to the County
throughout the term of this Agreement.
1.Commercial General Liability Insurance.
$ 500,000 per claim
$1,500,000 per occurrence
$2,000,000 general aggregate
$2,000,000 products/completed operations total limit
$1,500,000 personal injury and advertising liability
This policy will be written on an occurrence basis using ISO form CG 00 01 or its
equivalent. Coverage will include contractual liability and XCU. Grantee will be
required to provide proof of completed operations coverage for 3 years after
substantial completion.
Grantee is required to add Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, Ramsey County, their officials, employees, volunteers, and agents as
Additional Insured to the Grantee’s Commercial General Liability and Umbrella
policies with respect to liabilities caused in whole or part by Grantee’s acts or
omissions, or the acts or omissions of those acting on Grantee’s behalf in the
performance of the ongoing operations, services and completed operations of the
Grantee under this Agreement. The coverage provided will be primary and non-
contributory.
2.Automobile Insurance.
Coverage will be provided for hired, non-owned and owned auto;
Minimum limits of $1,000,000 combined single limit
3.Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability.
Workers’ Compensation as required by Minnesota Statutes;
Employers Liability Limits:
$500,000/$500,000/$500,000
4.Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Coverage (if applicable).
Per Claim Limit:$ 500,000
23
9
Per Occurrence Limit:$1,500,000
Aggregate Limit:$2,000,000
This policy is to be written as acceptable to the County.
Certificates of Insurance must indicate if the policy is issued on a claims-made or
occurrence basis. If coverage is carried on a claims-made basis, then: 1) the
retroactive date will be noted on the Certificate and will be prior to or the day of
the inception of the Agreement; and 2) evidence of coverage will be provided for
three years beyond expiration of the Agreement.
5.Property Insurance. Grantee will secure property insurance on a replacement
cost, all risk basis for both real and personal property. The policy will include
business interruption and extra expense coverages. The County will be added to
the policy as lender as its interest may appear.
C.Grantee will provide County with prior notice of any lapse in the insurance required
under this Agreement including cancellation, and/or non-renewal or material change in
coverage. Grantee who is providing services on behalf of the County will notify its
insurer that the County is requiring third party notice of mid-term cancellation per
Minnesota Statutes § 60A.36, subd. 2a.
D.The above sub-paragraphs establish minimum insurance requirements, and it is the sole
responsibility of Grantee to purchase and maintain additional coverages as it may deem
necessary in connection with this Agreement.
E.Certificate of Insurance must indicate if the policy is issued pursuant to these
requirements. Grantee will not commence work until the Grantee has obtained the
required insurance and filed an acceptable Certificate of Insurance with County. Copies
of insurance policies will be submitted to the County upon request.
F.Nothing in this Agreement will constitute a waiver by the County of any statutory or
common law immunities, limits, or exceptions on liability.
G.Certificates will specifically indicate if the policy is written with an admitted or non-
admitted carrier. Best’s Rating for the insurer will be noted on the Certificate, and will
not be less than an A-.
10.TERMINATION.
A.This Agreement may be terminated by the County immediately upon the receipt by the
County of notice of the loss of funding for activities eligible under ERF.
B.This Agreement may be terminated by Grantee upon thirty (30) days written notice
should the County fail in its commitment under this Agreement to provide funding, as
provided in this Agreement.
24
10
11.PUBLIC INFORMATION.
If requested by the County, the Grantee will comply with the following:
A.In all news releases and other public notices related to projects funded under this
Agreement, the Grantee will include information identifying the source of funds as
Ramsey County.
B.For all construction projects, the Grantee will erect a sign to the County’s specifications
at the construction site, identifying the source of funds as Ramsey County.
12.EVALUATION.
The Grantee agrees to participate with the County in any evaluation project or performance
report, as designed by the County or the appropriate federal agency, and to make available all
information required by any such evaluation process.
13.DATA PRIVACY.
All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated for any purpose in the course
of the Grantee’s performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, or any other applicable state statutes, any state
rules adopted to implement the Act and statutes, as well as federal statutes and regulations on
data privacy.
14. PAYMENT / DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE
County will disburse funds to Grantee pursuant to this Agreement, based on a payment request
form provided by the County, submitted by Grantee and approved by the County. Payment
requests can be submitted once per month and must be accompanied by supporting invoices that
are related to activities in the approved project budget. Subject to verification of adequacy of a
written disbursement request and approval of consistency with this Agreement, the County will
disburse the requested amount to Grantee within three (3) weeks after receipt of a written
disbursement request. The final request for disbursement must be submitted by January 12,
2024, unless extended in writing by County, or any unrequested funds will be lost.
25
11
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ERF GRANT AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the
date and year first written above.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
a Minnesota municipal corporation
By:
Charlie Yunker
Its: City Manager
26
12
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ERF GRANT AGREEMENT
RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:
Ryan T. O’Connor,
Ramsey County Manager
Approval Recommended:
Community and Economic Development
Approved as to Form:
Amy K. L. Schmidt
Assistant Ramsey County Attorney
27
13
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Property located in the City of Saint Anthony Village, legally described as:
Lot 6, Block 1, Apache Plaza
Address: 3803 Stinson Blvd., St. Anthony, MN 55421
28
14
EXHIBIT B
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION,
INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION -
LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS
As required by the Ramsey County Contract Compliance and Debarment Ordinance, City of
Saint Anthony Village, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Grantee”), certifies that neither it,
nor its principals, is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded, by any Federal department or agency, or the State of Minnesota or
Ramsey County, from participation in the transaction made by the Agreement dated evenly with
it (“Agreement”) between Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (“County”)
and Grantee.
As a lower tier participant, Grantee agrees that by submitting this certification, it will not
knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred,
suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered
transaction, unless authorized by County.
Grantee agrees to provide a list of its contractors hired for the Remediation Activities to County
prior to any disbursement of funds under the Agreement.
The terms of the Agreement are incorporated into this certification and all capitalized terms in
this certification which are defined in the Agreement will have the meanings set forth in the
Agreement.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY
A Minnesota municipal corporation
By:
Charlie Junker
Its: City Manager
Dated:________________, 2022
29
15
EXHIBIT C
Ramsey County Prevailing Wage Certification
Ramsey County policy requires payment of the prevailing wage for any projects, including construction,
demolition, excavation, remodeling or repair on any roads, bridges, sewers, streets, alleys, parks,
parkways, buildings, removal of public nuisances or any other improvement made to public or private
property involving labor services; private security, custodial and vehicle towing services; and prevailing
wage and/or truck rental rates when required to perform work for the project or service, when the
anticipated contract value is over $25,000.
Prevailing wage applies to contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, holders of
interests in real property, agents, or other persons regardless of the form of business
entity used, including but not limited to individuals, sole proprietorships and independent
contractors for the specified projects and/or services.
Prevailing wage does not apply to apprentices working on projects and/or services if
registered in the apprenticeship program and/or where the work is performed or
provided pursuant to a volunteer program.
Note: Prevailing wage rate will have the meaning contained in Minnesota Statutes §177.42, Subd. 6, as
determined from time to time by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry for the area where the
project is located or where the services are provided. In those instances where the Minnesota
Department of Labor and Industry has not certified and published a prevailing rate of wages and benefits
for a particular work classification, the prevailing wage rate to be paid for such work classification means
the union wage rate and benefit rate in the locality of the Project or Services for such classification over
which the union has jurisdiction.
I certify that applicable prevailing wages will be paid to all covered workers on this
project.
Name of Project:
______________________________________________________________
General Contractor:
___________________________________________________________
Contract Amount:
_____________________________________________________________
Construction Start Date:
________________________________________________________
_____________________________ _____________________________
30
16
____________________
Authorized Signature Printed Name Date
31
K:\021443-000\Admin\Docs\Resolution 22-xxx Accept Grant.docx
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 22-074
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE AND THE
RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUNDS PROGRAM
WHEREAS,St. Anthony Village has applied to Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority for a grant
in an amount not to exceed Forty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($40,000.00), the proceeds of which
are to be used to carry out activities pursuant to the eligibility requirements of the Ramsey County
Environmental Response Fund program for remediation activities at the 3803 Stinson Boulevard site
in the City of St. Anthony Village; and
WHEREAS,Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority has agreed to make the grant on terms as set
forth in the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village that:
1.The City Council agrees to accept and approve the Grant Agreement between the City of St.
Anthony Village and the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment; and
2.The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute said Agreement for and on
behalf of the City of St. Anthony Village.
Adopted this 25th day of October, 2022.
_____________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________________
City Clerk
Reviewed for administration:______________________________
Charlie Yunker, City Manager
32
MEMORANDUM
To:City of Saint Anthony Village City Council
From:Jeremy Gumke, Public Works Director and Charlie Yunker, City Manager
Date:October 25, 2022 City Council Meeting
Request:Discussion on Dog Park Feasibility
BACKGROUND
At its annual Goal Setting session, the City Council identified an Action Step for staff in 2022, to explore the
feasibility of adding a dog park in St. Anthony. Staff researched the topic and presented findings to the Parks &
Environmental Commission on September 12, 2022.
In 2014 the Parks Commission reviewed the topic of a dog park, and the focus was the ice rink in Central Park for
a dual-use. After hearing from an official from the Minneapolis Park Board at the time, it was determined that:
“The commission consensus after her presentation was that this project would be a real challenge for
the following reasons:
•Area chosen not large enough for Dog Park.
•The need for a different type of surface other than grass (wood chips are the best surface).
•Fencing around the rink would need to be upgraded.
•Potential noise problems for nearby residents.
•It is necessary regardless of the size and layout, separation between large and small dog is
absolutely necessary (reduces dog fights).”
The City’s website list a handful of dog parks within a reasonable distance; the closest being the St. Anthony
Parkway Off-Leash Dog Park about 2.5 miles from the City, located at 700 St. Anthony Parkway Minneapolis, MN
55418. Also, Silverwood Park within St. Anthony includes a one-mile dog trail that is maintained year-round.
FINDINGS
Staff researched the best practices is dog park design in order to identify possible location(s) for a dog park
somewhere in the City. Attached to this memo is a report from the City of Ann Arbor, MI on ‘Recommendations
and Guidelines for Dog Park Site Selection, Design, Operations and Maintenance’, which summarized optimal
dog park design guidelines.
The attached report (and other sources reviewed by staff that were not included) summarized best practices for
placement on Pages 6-7. Staff focused on this section for evaluating potential sites for a dog park before
considering other aspects such as design or management. Key components are listed below:
Size: The recommended minimum size for dog parks varies considerably among cities, but is generally
between ½ acre and one acre.
33
Buffer from Residential: A few cities provide definitive distances from residences, varying from 50 feet
to 200 feet. All strive to minimize conflicts and include guidelines such as: making sure that noise and
activity levels are no more than other park uses, importance of screening or visual buffers, and having a
minimal impact on residences.
Parking: Recommendations include that parking should be readily accessible, close to the site,
sufficient/adequate size, and convenient. There were no standards for size; rather it is important to
consider parking when locating a dog park.
Use Conflict Avoidance: Guidelines include avoiding play areas and other recreational amenities, high
use areas, natural areas and water sources, wildlife, trails, community gardens, and historic sites.
Staff reviewed the City’s parks layout and usage and other city-owned property, and was unable to identify an
appropriate location that would meet all or most of the key criteria above. So in order to add a dog park current
usage and/or amenities would need to be eliminated. As a result, staff‘s opinion is integrating a dog park into
the park system is not feasible at this time.
Due to not readily identifying an appropriate location, staff did not yet begin any preliminary design process,
estimation of implementation cost, or ongoing maintenance costs/staffing needs.
PARKS & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Staff presented the initial information gathered for input and any ideas on alternatives the staff have not
considered. The Commission acknowledged that there are no sites available within the parks system or other
city-owned property. The Commission also briefly discussed usage parameters such as permits and the
possibility of separate parks for small and large dogs, dedicated hours for each size of dogs, and how resident
education on available dog parks and city ordnance around the ownership of dogs.
Discussion then focused on possible alternate locations, focusing on two areas:
Open space west of Apache Animal Hospital and
Open space between Hwy 88 and Rankin Rd/Old Hwy 8.
The Commission discussed these options and wished to send them to the City Council for consideration.
Hwy 88 and Rankin Rd/Old Hwy 8
Attached to this memo is a resident suggestion for another location adjacent to Hwy 88. The area is open, and
currently mowed by public works staff. The area is large enough to meet best practice and is walkable from a
large residential area of the city.
The area is Hennepin County right-of-way, so usage as a dog park would need to be approved by Hennepin
County. The provided aerial map an approximate measurements show that it fits many of the best practices
criteria, though the total usable area may less than estimated due to a drainage ditch along the east side.
Apache Animal Hospital
Below is an aerial view of the possible location highlighted within the yellow box. The area is adjacent to
sidewalks that connect many high density areas of the city, as well as being nearby the single family home
neighborhood to the south.
The area is partly privately owned and partly owned by the Soo Line Railroad. Usage of the area as a dog park
would need to be coordinated with the property owner and the railroad. If shared use with the railroad were
unavailable, the useable size would be greatly reduced.
34
DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK
Below are the specific items for discussion and feedback for staff:
Does the Council wish to explore either of these options with the property owners/jurisdictions?
Does the Council have any additional thoughts or observations?
Other considerations for staff?
ATTACHMENTS:
Resident suggestion on Hwy 88 dog park location
Ann Arbor Report
35
36
37
Recommendations and
Guidelines for Dog Park
Site Selection, Design,
Operations and
Maintenance
2013/2014 Park Advisory Commission Dog Park Subcommittee
MISSION STATEMENT
To create formal guidelines regarding the placement and management of new
dog parks and the improvement of existing dog parks in Ann Arbor.
38
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 2
A Brief History ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Establishment of Dog Parks in Ann Arbor .......................................................................................................... 2
Assessing the Desire for Additional Dog Parks ................................................................................................. 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 3
Goal 1 – Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future Dog Parks ................ 4
Goal 2 – Research Best Management Practices to Inform Guidelines for Ann Arbor Dog Parks .......... 4
Goal 3 - Provide Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks ...................... 4
Goal 4 – Provide Guidelines for the Ongoing Operation and Improvement of Existing Dog Parks .... 4
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 5
Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future Dog Parks (Goal 1) ................. 5
Public Input Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Summary of Survey Responses.......................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Input from Public Meetings .......................................................................................................... 6
Summary of Placement, Design and Management Practices from Other Cities (Goal 2) ........................ 6
Placement .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Design .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
DOG PARK GUIDELINES FOR ANN ARBOR .................................................................................... 8
Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks (Goal 3) ............................................ 8
Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks ................................................................................................ 8
Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks ....................................................................................................... 9
Guidelines for Management and Enforcement of Dog Parks ................................................................... 10
Process to Establish New Dog Park Sites ...................................................................................................... 10
Guidelines for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks (Goal 4) ..................................................................... 11
Inventory of Existing Dog Parks ...................................................................................................................... 12
Suggestions for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks ................................................................................. 13
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 13
Appendix 1: Community Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 13
Appendix 2: Website Page ............................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 3: Public Meetings ............................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix 4: Research from Other Communities ............................................................................................ 26
Appendix 5: Charts Summarizing Data from Other Cities ........................................................................... 28
Appendix 6: Existing Dog Park Rules ............................................................................................................... 29
Appendix 7: Scoring Sheet for Placement Criteria ....................................................................................... 30
39
INTRODUCTION
Dog parks have grown in popularity throughout the country as more people have pets and are asking that
communities provide recreational opportunities for them. The City of Ann Arbor is no exception. This planning
document has been developed in response to resident advocacy for additional dog parks and to assure that,
moving forward, the existing and proposed dog park areas are successful and well received.
The City of Ann Arbor currently has 158 parks covering 2,118 acres. Two of these parks contain fenced off-
leash dog run areas, known as dog parks. These include 10-acre Swift Run Park and .7-acre Olson Park.
These parks are located at the extreme south and north of the City, and residents have requested that new
dog park areas be more accessible to their residence. This document provides historical information on the
background leading up to the development of the existing dog parks, information about the existing dog
parks in the City, data about dog parks in other cities, guidelines for the location and design of any new off-
leash dog parks, and guidelines for how to improve existing dog parks. In addition, details are provided
about the process that the City’s dog park subcommittee went through to establish these guidelines.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A Brief History
Public advocacy to establish dog parks dates to the mid 1990’s. To address these requests, in 1997, a Dog
Off-Leash Taskforce was formed as recommended by staff and the Park Advisory Commission with the goal
of gathering and reviewing information, reporting findings, and making recommendations for the design,
placement, and management of dog parks. The task force met for seven months. Their work included holding
interviews with dog behavioral specialists, and researching materials on dog behaviors and management
from around the country.
The resulting report, (attached as a hyperlink) released in 1998, addressed design criteria, including size,
fencing, gates and entrances, sanitation facilities, water, surfacing, shade, seating, emergency phone, agility
equipment, paths, parking, park maintenance, supervision and monitoring, signs, and hours of operation. It
also provided information about obtaining a permit, dog park rules, costs and funding, enforcement, changing
the City ordinance, and a pilot project. The report was presented to the Park Advisory Commission in
November of 1998.
The effort to establish the first dog park did not move forward until 2005 as there were concerns about
potential management issues, funding, and resistance from residents. However, the concept of an off-leash
dog park continued to gain momentum in the intervening years and advocates continued to lobby to establish
one or more dog parks. In response, the City researched potential locations using the criteria developed in the
1998 report. In 2005, the City started discussions with the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation
Commission, who were also hearing from constituents that a dog park was a desired amenity, to explore the
joint development of a dog park at Swift Run Park.
Establishment of Dog Parks in Ann Arbor
In June 2007, City Code was amended to provide for dogs to run off-leash in designated dog play areas
(i.e., dog parks). In December 2007, a partnership agreement was signed between the City of Ann Arbor and
the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission for the development, maintenance, and operation of
40
a dog park at Swift Run Park. Swift Run was suggested as a location because of its proximity to the County
maintenance facility, was not near residences, was adequately sized, and was not being used for any other
park purpose.
A second dog park area was established at Olson Park in 2008. This location was adopted after a series of
public meetings, in which alternative locations were discussed, including Ward Park, Leslie Park, and South
Maple Park, but were not supported by adjacent residents or were not compatible with other city functions for
the site at the time. Olson, like Swift Run, is located away from housing. It is part of a larger multi-use park,
and does not conflict with or preclude any other existing park use; however it is much smaller, and primarily
serves residents in the northern part of the City.
Assessing the Desire for Additional Dog Parks
In the past few years, public advocacy for additional dog parks has again risen to the forefront of desired
park amenities. Input from the 2011-2015 Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan also supported the desire
for additional Dog Park areas. This input has been focused on creating additional parks closer to residences,
especially one that is centrally located and walkable from the downtown for residents who do not drive.
In 2012, staff suggested West Park would be worth considering since a master plan had just been completed
and property purchased along Chapin was not being utilized for any specific purpose. A public meeting was
held and there was general support for the concept. However, enough opposition arose that the project was
eventually rejected. A new initiative to explore dog park locations was needed.
In response, a subcommittee of the Park Advisory Commission was formed in 2013. Over the course of 2013-
14, the committee met more than 13 times. These meetings were posted and open to the public, and public
commentary was first and last on every agenda. The committee was tasked with developing a public input
plan and a process for determining appropriate criteria to locate dog parks. The committee looked to
establish criteria and to test these criteria at several park locations to see if the elements were relevant and a
good determinant for a successful location. The committee looked at the parks in the vicinity of the downtown
as a first step. Several potential locations were identified to test the criteria before holding public meetings.
Two public meetings were held to discuss the criteria and other issues surrounding establishment of dog parks.
After considering strong public feedback regarding the process, the committee decided to take a step back to
revisit the existing criteria and develop revised recommendations for locating, designing, and operating a
dog park, before proposing any locations and holding public meetings on specific park areas. A key piece of
these recommendations relates to process, more specifically, ensuring that the public has a chance to be
actively engaged in discussing, reviewing, and commenting on these criteria for locating new dog parks. This
document is the culmination of these discussions and provides the framework for how the City can move
forward with creating and maintaining successful dog parks. However, it is also understood that this is a living
document and will be revisited in the future to consider new initiatives and trends.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
To guide the subcommittee’s mission, a series of goals were established. These goals cover the process and
outcomes for creating new dog parks and improving existing ones. The four goals established by the
subcommittee include:
41
Goal 1 – Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential
Future Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the dog park subcommittee utilized a series of tools including: a community-wide survey, a
series of public meetings, targeted outreach to engaged citizens, and discussion during dog park
subcommittee meetings.
Goal 2 – Research Best Management Practices to Inform Guidelines for
Ann Arbor Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee contacted communities from around the country, referenced master plans,
and conducted interviews with staff and other community members. From this research, summaries and charts
were developed to compare best practices regarding dog parks. Results can be found in Appendix 4 and
Appendix 5.
Goal 3 - Provide Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of
New Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee set three objectives: 1) To develop criteria for site location; 2) To develop
criteria for site design; 3) To establish a public process for decision making regarding siting new dog parks.
To inform the guidelines, the committee reached out to communities around the country to gather best
management practices, as well as to learn what might be improved with existing dog parks (Goal 2). The
research included email, telephone interviews, website research, and review of master plans from other
communities. The data was then collated into charts to compare criteria that guide development and
maintenance of dog parks (Appendix 4).
The committee also created a community-wide survey to assess citizen needs, interests, desires, and concerns
regarding future and existing dog parks in Ann Arbor. In addition, two public meetings were held with citizens
to review the results of the survey and further discuss issues and opportunities related to new and existing dog
parks in Ann Arbor. The subcommittee reviewed the survey and public meeting input in the creation of this
document. The results from the survey and meetings can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 3, respectively.
Goal 4 – Provide Guidelines for the Ongoing Operation and Improvement
of Existing Dog Parks
To meet this goal, the subcommittee inventoried the existing Ann Arbor dog parks, including layout, amenities,
operation, and maintenance practices. Enforcement issues outside of the existing dog parks were also studied.
Input gathered from the survey and public meetings about what is and is not working well at Swift Run and
Olson Parks, and research from other communities, helped the subcommittee to learn about best management
practices. The committee also looked at volunteer and educational opportunities to aid in the management of
future and existing dog parks.
From this information, the subcommittee made recommendations to improve ongoing operation, infrastructure,
and amenities at existing dog parks and to improve enforcement issues surrounding off-leash dogs in parks.
42
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS
Evaluate Community Preferences around Existing and Potential Future
Dog Parks (Goal 1)
Research was conducted by asking residents of Ann Arbor to provide input through a number of mechanisms
explored below. Additionally, other cities and regions were interviewed to determine best management
practices for establishing new dog parks and operating existing ones.
Public Input Methods
Several methods were used to obtain public input including a citizen survey, two public meetings, input at task
force meetings, emails, and phone interviews. Each input method provided important information that helped
to inform the criteria for site selection and design, as well as recommendations for improvements to existing
dog parks.
A questionnaire was designed by the Park Advisory Commission subcommittee with public input and
advertised via email, press releases, the City website, and postcards placed at recreation facilities, the City
Hall customer service desk, and other public locations. The questions were designed to gain a better
understanding of the existing dog population, the desire for or concerns against dog parks, whether and how
people use dog parks, and what they like or dislike about them. Questions also addressed dog behaviors,
geographic distribution, and locations where dog parks would or would not be acceptable.
A dog park web page was maintained during the public input period detailing the ways in which residents
could be involved and provide input. The page listed the survey link, public meeting dates, email address,
and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee meeting times and locations. The page is attached in Appendix 2.
Two public meetings were held to obtain input. The meetings included discussion about potential location and
design criteria, maintenance issues with existing dog parks, concerns about creating new parks, potential
locations, and questions about what other communities are doing about dog parks.
Minutes of both meetings and detailed survey results are included in Appendix 3.
Summary of Survey Responses
The survey was completed by over 1,500 people, ranging in age from teens to seniors, and
representing all areas of the City, with the majority being from zip code 48103.
The majority of respondents own dogs and many own more than one dog.
The majority of respondents do not currently use dog parks, but of those who do, more use Swift Run.
Frequency of use ranged from daily use to a few times annually.
The current dog parks were appreciated for their existence, size, fencing, and distance from homes.
The dislikes included ill behaved dogs, fees, lack of shade, and issues with cleanliness.
Respondents indicated that dog park usage would increase as the distance to the home decreased,
with the most popular time for use being late afternoon.
43
The most important items mentioned for a successful dog park were cleanliness, maintenance, location,
and shade.
The greatest concerns were cleanliness, dog conflicts, and maintenance.
Many residents were willing to volunteer at a dog park to help clean, landscape, organize events and
activities, and fundraise.
Summary of Input from Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held with 29 people attending the first meeting, 9 people attending the
second meeting, and 17 attending the third meeting.
Important considerations should include buffers between the dog park and other uses, protection of
natural areas and water quality, provision of shade, appropriate surfacing, adequate drainage, and
parking so as not to put additional burden on existing neighborhoods.
Take care of what we have and correct existing issues, including cleanliness, inadequate shade,
condition/maintenance of existing dog parks, and issues with dogs running off-leash.
Location is important, but it is also important to recognize that the City will never be able to provide
dog parks walkable from every residence and land other than parks should be considered.
Research and provide data from other communities to establish best practices when designing and
locating new dog parks and managing existing parks.
Establish an ample and well thought out process for public input.
Summary of Placement, Design and Management Practices from Other
Cities (Goal 2)
Staff and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee members researched development and management
practices from numerous cities, and obtained information via phone conversations, email, websites, master
plans, and policy documents. Cities contacted include: Baltimore, MD; Boulder, CO; Chicago, IL; Kalamazoo,
MI; Madison, WI; Norfolk, VA; Alexandria, VA; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; and Meridian Township, MI.
Existing master plans referenced include Denver, CO; Salt Lake County, UT; and Oakland, CA.
Below is a summary of the responses. The data from the research on each city is detailed in Appendix 5.
Placement
Size: The recommended minimum size for dog parks varies considerably among cities, but is generally
between ½ acre and one acre.
Buffer from Residential: A few cities provide definitive distances from residences, varying from 50
feet to 200 feet. All strive to minimize conflicts and include guidelines such as: making sure that noise
and activity levels are no more than other park uses, importance of screening or visual buffers, and
having a minimal impact on residences.
Water Source: Most recommend having a source of drinking water for humans and dogs if possible.
44
Parking: Recommendations include that parking should be readily accessible, close to the site,
sufficient/adequate size, and convenient. There were no standards for size; rather it is important to
consider parking when locating a dog park.
Drainage: Important aspects included that the site be relatively flat and have permeable soils.
Shade: All recommend some shade as desirable, but not heavily shaded to allow for grass growth
and for the ground to dry.
Use Conflict Avoidance: Guidelines include avoiding play areas and other recreational amenities,
high use areas, natural areas and water sources, wildlife, trails, community gardens, and historic sites.
Protect Wildlife and Natural Areas: Several cities discuss avoidance of conflicts with wildlife and
sensitive habitats.
Geographic Distribution: A few cities have general guidelines, such as a one or two mile service
area, but most do not state explicitly how the parks should be distributed through their community.
Design
Fence Height and Material: All cities contacted have galvanized or vinyl coated chain link fences,
with a minimum height of 4 feet. Double gated entries to allow for dog owners to unleash the dogs in
a corral prior to letting the dog run free are the norm.
Surfacing: There is no consensus as to the best type of surface. Several cities have multiple surfacing
types including crusher fines or decomposed granite around the entrance area, concrete, grass, and
mulch. For the larger areas, grass is used most often.
Separate Small and Large Dog Areas: Most cities provide small dog areas if space allows.
Site Furniture and Other Amenities: Most provide benches. Some have community bulletin boards to
post announcements and some have shade structures. Very few have dog play amenities.
Trash Cans and Bag Holders: All provide trash containers and some provide bag holders. A minority
of cities also provide bags.
Signage: All cities contacted post rule signs.
ADA Access: All cities contacted said that they comply with the ADA for access to the site.
Management
Staffing: Cities that have rangers or other park staff monitor dog parks, as well as illegal off-leash
activity outside of dog parks, find this helpful for controlling dogs and building community support.
Fines: Cities that issue warning tickets and/or fines find this effective at reducing the number of
repeat offenders of illegal off-leash dog activity.
Entry Fees: Fees to use dog parks range from free to $35 or $40 per year.
Entry Key Fob: Cities that restrict use of the dog parks to patrons who pay for the permit by installing
a key fob entry find that it encourages more people to follow rules, increases revenue, and provides
a more equitable system for all users.
45
Hours of Operation: Dawn to dusk is common.
Use Permit: Obtaining a dog park permit as part of purchasing a dog license is common practice.
Volunteers and Enforcement: A few cities have volunteers involved with the park maintenance and
activity programming. Involvement of community members was noted to increase acceptance of the
dog park and helps to minimize problems.
DOG PARK GUIDELINES FOR ANN ARBOR
Guidelines for Development and Maintenance of New Dog Parks (Goal 3)
Many of the below criteria are consistent with the off-leash Task Force Report of June 1998. However,
several criteria have been updated based on current research and public input. This section outlines guidelines
for placement, design, management, and enforcement of both existing and proposed dog parks, and the
public process to be followed to establish new dog parks. The guidelines are derived from public input and
what the subcommittee learned from research of other city’s practices.
Guidelines for Placement of New Dog Parks
Size: The size of dog parks will be dependent upon the particular park in which it is proposed, other
park activities, facilities, proximity to residences, etc. Larger is better (at least ½ acre), but if a
smaller dog park area is all that can be accommodated in a particular park, and if there is
community support, then a smaller size will be considered.
Buffer from Residential: It is crucial to provide a buffer between nearby residences and the dog
park. The buffer should allow for neighbors to have no more disturbances from a dog park than other
typical park uses. Buffers may include vegetation and/or berms to aid in noise/visual attenuation.
Non-residential Adjacent Land Use: Depending on the type of business or institution, a dog park
may be considered either a beneficial amenity or an undesirable facility.
Drinking Fountain: A source of drinking water is highly desirable within or adjacent to the dog park
area.
Parking: Sufficient parking, convenient to the site, should be provided such that the dog park does not
create undue burden on surrounding neighborhoods.
Land Suitability: The site should be relatively flat and have permeable soils. If a desirable site has
excessive slopes, it should be designed such that erosion does not become an issue, water bodies are
protected, and visibility to all dogs is possible within the fenced in area.
Shade: Shade is highly desirable. The site should provide a good mix of mature trees and open
space/turf grass.
Use Conflict Avoidance: It is important to provide a sufficient buffer between the dog park area and
other recreational facilities such as playgrounds, trails, ball fields, picnic shelters, game courts, or any
existing heavily used or programmed area.
46
Protect Natural Areas: Dog park areas should not be located in or in close proximity to natural areas
where flora and fauna, such as ground nesting birds, small mammals, and native plants, would be
disturbed.
Geographic Distribution: Dog park areas should be distributed in the City such that there is equitable
distribution to dog parks in the City.
Guidelines for Design of New Dog Parks
Fencing Height and Type: A minimum of a 4 foot high chain link fence, either galvanized or vinyl
coated, be installed around the perimeter of the site.
Perimeter Plantings/Buffers: If the budget and site permit, and if it is necessary to buffer the dog run
area, vegetation should be planted on the outside of the fence to aid in the aesthetic quality of the
site and to assist in mitigating noise associated with the dog park.
Entrance Design: An entry corral, consisting of at least an 8 foot x 8 foot fenced area with two gates,
should be provided to allow for pet owners to safely unleash their dog prior to letting them in the dog
run area.
Visual Character and Aesthetics: Dog parks should be located so as not to detract from the aesthetic
quality of a park or open space. Ideally, the dog park should be designed to integrate well into the
existing site.
Surfacing: A variety of surfaces may be used within a site. Crushed fines at the entry are
recommended as this area has a concentration of use. In smaller dog run areas, a larger crushed fines
area is recommended as the concentration of dogs may not allow grass to grow. All surfaces should
be easy to maintain. If possible, lawn areas should be rested periodically to allow the turf to recover.
Separate Areas for Large and Small Dogs: When space permits, separate small dog areas should be
provided for dogs up to 25 pounds.
Signage: Rules shall be clearly posted, including codes of behavior, hours, and requirements for entry.
ADA Accessibility: Barrier free access to the site shall be provided, as well as an area through the
corral and at the entry. Barrier free paths through the dog run area should be provided if space and
funding permit.
Trash Containers: Trash containers and waste removal bag holders shall be provided in the dog run
area, making sure that they are located with easy access for maintenance vehicles.
Site Furniture: Ideally, several benches should be provided in convenient locations to allow for
gathering and resting throughout the dog park area.
Pathways: Walking trails around the perimeter would encourage owners to interact with and monitor
their dogs more closely, as well as to provide additional ease of access to the entire site, and should
be provided if there is sufficient space and funding.
Shade: Trees and/or small shade structures should be provided if the site has insufficient shade to
allow humans and dogs to retreat from the sun.
47
Water: Drinking fountains should be provided if water is readily available and should include a dog
drinker/bowl.
Lighting: As the park areas are open from dawn to dusk, lighting need not be provided as an
additional amenity.
Agility Equipment: Amenities such as agility equipment may be included if a user group desires them.
Ease of Maintenance: Service gates and trash barrels should be located such that maintenance
vehicles may easily enter from an existing park road, parking lot, or street frontage.
Bulletin Board: A community kiosk and bulletin board should be provided to provide a place to post
notifications for meetings, work days, and events.
Guidelines for Management and Enforcement of Dog Parks
Staffing: Staff monitoring of dog parks during heavy use periods is recommended.
Fines: Warning tickets, followed up by fines, are recommended for repeat offenders to help reduce
the amount of illegal off-leash dog activity outside of dog parks and enforce use by those who have
not paid the fee to use dog parks.
Entry Fees: Fees to use dog parks ranged from free to $35 or $40 per year. The City’s fees are in
line with those around the country. Continue to evaluate fees in relationship to other dog parks.
Entry Key Fob: Restricting use of the dog parks to patrons who pay for the permit is recommended to
encourage more people to follow city rules, increase revenue, and provide a more equitable system
for all users. A key fob would assist in monitoring who has purchased dog park passes and have
obtained the required vaccinations.
Hours of Operation: Maintain current hours to be consistent with all parks: dawn to dusk.
Dog Park License: Obtaining a dog park permit as part of obtaining a dog license is efficient and
should be continued. Explore implementation of an online application process to be more user-friendly
and increase compliance.
Rules: City rules are consistent with other cities. They should remain as is and continue to be posted.
Existing dog park rules are listed in Appendix 6.
Turf Maintenance: Design of dog parks should permit resting grass to allow turf to reestablish.
Volunteers: Volunteer involvement should be encouraged to promote stewardship of dog parks.
Work with park volunteer staff to help develop programs and events, and recruit stewards.
Education: Develop program to educate park users on dog etiquette, and to educate the community
about dogs and dog parks in general.
Process to Establish New Dog Park Sites
Any proposed location should have strong support from surrounding neighbors and, in general, be supported
by the community. Buy-in from immediate neighbors is crucial to the success of any proposed location. Given
this basic criteria, the following process shall be followed when considering establishment of a new dog park.
48
1. Establish an ad-hoc committee comprised of members from the Park Advisory Commission, staff, and
citizens to identify potential sites using established guidelines.
2. Have committee evaluate sites using the placement criteria (Appendix 7) to ensure the greatest
opportunity for success while considering geographic distribution.
3. Using the scoring sheets, narrow the sites to those that score the highest.
4. Develop a concept plan for the site being considered that shows the proposed location in the
particular park or public land, the access points, parking, amenities, and landscaping.
5. Plan for public input using the Community Engagement Tool, including conducting an online
questionnaire available to all citizens, and notifying all residents within ¼ mile of the proposed site
by mail with the link for the questionnaire, and the date and place for the public meeting.
6. Hold public meeting to discuss the site being considered and include the input received from the
email questionnaire.
7. If there is general support for the project, concerns and suggestions are shared at the public meeting
and staff will explore modifications to the concept plan.
8. If, after the concept plan is modified, opposition to the plan is still such that the project lacks the
necessary support to succeed, then the second site on the list of potential parks will be considered,
and the public process will be repeated.
9. When a proposed location is generally supported, being sensitive to residents in close proximity to the
proposed dog park, the ad hoc committee will vote on the proposed site.
10. If the committee approves the proposed site, it would then be brought to the Park Advisory
Commission for discussion and recommendation.
11. If the Park Advisory Commission approves the proposal, the site will be brought to City Council and
include a public hearing so that City Ordinance can be modified to accommodate the proposed site.
Guidelines for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks (Goal 4)
In order to improve existing dog park areas, it is important to inventory what we have and explore what is
working and what needs improvement. Lessons learned will also inform maintenance practices for new dog
parks. The City currently has two dog park areas, Swift Run and Olson Parks. The inventory of these parks
follows, as well as recommendations for improvements.
49
Inventory of Existing Dog Parks
OVERVIEW OF SWIFT RUN DOG PARK
Location: 2998 E. Ellsworth Road at corner of Platt Road
Size – 10 acre grassy field area with 5 foot high perimeter fencing
Large and small dog run areas
Gravel parking lot with approximately 30 spaces
Double entry/exit control gates (wheel chair accessible)
Mowed trail, landscaping, and benches
On-site portable toilet and nearby, off-site, flush-restrooms (Southeast Area Park at Northwest corner
of Platt and Ellsworth)
Trash receptacles and dog waste disposal stations
Posted rules, signage, and information kiosk
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO SWIFT RUN DOG PARK
1. The location of the park on a former landfill limits the types of amenities that can be installed as
footings are not permitted that might puncture landfill cover.
2. The condition of the parking lot has been a source of complaint because of muddy conditions and
rutting. Paving the parking lot should be considered.
3. Requests have also included water and permanent restrooms. However, no water is available at the
site due to the fact that there is no water main in the vicinity.
4. Continue to explore improvements to surfacing.
OVERVIEW OF OLSON DOG PARK
Location – Dhu Varren Road at corner of Pontiac Trail
Size – .7 acre grassy field area
5 foot high perimeter fencing
One area – no separate large and small dog run areas due to space limitations
Paved parking lot for all park uses
Two double entry/exit control gates (wheel chair accessible)
Benches
Flush restrooms on-site
Drinking fountain with dog bowl located near restrooms
Trash receptacles and dog waste disposal stations at entries to dog park
Posted rules, signage, and information kiosk
50
Separate maintenance/entry gate for mowing/maintenance equipment
Surfacing consists of gravel and grass
Wind and shade shelter
One bench in fenced in area and other under shade structure
Shade trees within fence, but not many mature trees
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AT OLSON DOG PARK
1. Maintenance of the surfacing has been challenging because of the small size and clay soils. Staff has
experimented with different surfacing types, including woodchips and gravel.
2. Trees have been planted, but they are still small.
3. Location serves north area of town, but is too far from other parts of town.
4. In response to public input, improvements made to the dog park after initial construction include a
wind/shade structure, a second entry corral, and installation of a variety of surfacing types.
Suggestions for Improvements to Existing Dog Parks
1. Continue to evaluate surfacing. Make changes to improve drainage, wearing surface, and turf quality.
2. Work with Park Volunteer staff to find ways to engage volunteers for clean up days and other dog
park events.
3. Establish a plan for future amenities and improvements so that if funding for park amenities is
donated, there is a plan for inclusion in the existing dog parks.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Community Questionnaires
The subcommittee decided that questionnaires of the general public would allow a greater number of
residents to participate in the public process. The questionnaires were posted on the City’s website, emails
were sent out via govDelivery, two press releases were posted, and post cards were placed at City Hall as
well as several recreation facilities. The first questionnaire was available to the public for several weeks in
August 2013, and the second in February and March, 2015. The results are as follows:
Questionnaire #1
Over 1,500 individuals completed the first questionnaire
2/3 were female (67.1%); 1/3 male (32.9%)
Age Breakdown for Respondents:
0.2% - under 18
2.1% - 18-24
42.4% - 25-44
45% - 45-64
10.3% - 65+
Zip Codes for Respondents:
58.8% from zip-code 48103
51
18.9% from zip-code 48104
15.2% from zip-code 48105
7.1% from zip-code 48108
Q1: Do you currently have a dog?
Currently have a dog – 67.5%
Do not have a dog – 26.2%
Planning to get a dog – 6.2%
Q2: If yes, how many dogs?
Participants were asked to list the number of dogs they owned under 25 pounds and/or over
25 pounds.
Q3: Do you currently use any existing dog parks? If so, which dog parks do you use?
Respondents could select all that applied.
Swift Run – 332
Olson Park – 158
Do not use dog parks – 956
Participants were also able to list other area dog parks. Other sites mentioned included:
Animal Kingdom
Arise Dog Park
Mill Pond
Paw Run
Neighborhood
1 2 3 4 5 6
Weigh Under 25 Pounds 259 50 10 2 0 1
Weigh 25 Pounds or More 621 188 18 7 4 1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700 Number of Responses 52
Q4: How often do you use dog parks?
I don’t use dog parks – 61%
A few times annually – 16.6%
Once a month – 7.6%
Multiple times per week – 6.8%
Daily – 1.9%
Q5: What do you currently like about the existing dog park(s)?
This was an open ended question. The most common responses are listed below:
That they exist
The space – size
Secure fencing
That they are close to my home
That they are far from my home
No competition for other uses – outside existing parks
Seating
Nothing
That there is a legal place for dogs to play off-leash
Q6: What do you dislike about the existing dog park(s)?
This was an open ended question. The most common responses are listed below:
Ill-behaved dogs
Fee charged
Location – too far away
No water
Not enough shade
Cleanliness
No enforcement
53
Q7: If a dog park were located at a given distance from your residence, how often would you
use it? (Check all that apply):
68.8% Would use a dog park daily if it was less than ¼ mile from their residence
63.5% Would use daily or weekly if it was ¼ to 1 mile from their residence
56.1% Would use weekly or monthly if it was 1-2 miles from their residence
78.7% Would use monthly or not at all if it was 2-5 miles from residence
Q8: What times of day do you or would you most likely use a dog park? (Select all that apply.)
54
Q9: How important are the following items to a successful dog park? Please select the 3 items
that are MOST important to you and the 3 items that are LEAST important to you. Selecting
more than 3 for each column will nullify the response.
Q10: Are there issues related to dog parks that concern you? (Select all that apply.)
55
Q11: Would you support a dog park being located in…? (Answer all that apply)
Participants were asked to list parks for each sub-question. Word clouds are used to indicate the variety of
responses. The larger the word(s) appear, the more times it was mentioned.
My neighborhood park (please provide the name of the park).
581 out of 943 selected this option.
Larger community-wide park (please provide the name of the park).
478 out of 943 selected this option.
Other community park (please provide the name of the park).
251 out of 943 selected this option.
As many places as the city will provide (please provide locations).
267 out of 943 selected this option.
I do not want a dog park anywhere.
Allmendinger Ann Arbor Bandemer Bird Hills Buhr Campus Downtown Fuller
Gallup Haisley Land Langford Lillie Locations Nature Area Park Place River School
Slauson Space Specific West Side Wurster
Allmendinger Bird Hills Field Greenview Hudson Mills Liberty Plaza Nature Area Park School
Virginia West Side Woods Wurster
Allmendinger Almendinger Park Bandemer Barton Bird Hills Buhr Burns Park County Farm
Eberwhite Gallop Gallup Hunt Park Nature Area Veterans Park Vets West Park
Allmendinger Beckley Buhr Park Burns Park County Farm Park Cranbrook
Park Frisinger Park Fritz Park Gallup Park Hollywood Park Hunt Park
MaryfieldMiller Park Nature Area Neighborhood Parks Park Near
Sugarbush Swift Run Vegas Park Veterans Park Vets Park Virginia Park
Waterworks Park Wellington PlaygroundWest Park Wheeler Park Windemere
ParkWurster Park
56
130 out of 943 selected this option.
Q12: Would you be willing to volunteer at a dog park?
Clean – 199
Landscape – 180
Help organize events and activities – 156
Fundraise – 115
Q13: Would you support off-leash dog hours in parks without fencing?
Yes – 40.1%
No – 46.1%
Don’t know – 13.8%
The full results of the community questionnaire, including all open ended responses may be found at this link:
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (PDF).
Questionnaire #2
The subcommittee decided that a second questionnaire of the general public was needed after there were
requests to revisit the criteria. The questionnaire was posted on the City’s website, emails were sent out via
govDelivery, a press releases was posted, and emails were sent to everyone who had attended a previous
meeting or provided their email. The questionnaire was available to the public for several weeks in February
and March, 2015. The results are as follows:
168 individuals viewed the questionnaire, and 40 completed the questionnaire.
Three questions were asked about the process, research and scoring sheet:
Q1: Given the research presented from other cities, and that there are not universally accepted dog park
best management practices, does the proposed criteria for Ann Arbor provide sufficient guidance to
determine potential sites for a new dog park?
Yes – 55%
No - 42.5%
No opinion – 2.5%
Q2: Do you feel that the proposed scoring sheet provides an objective means to help determine whether
or not a particular site should be proposed for a dog park?
Yes – 60%
No – 32.5%
No opinion – 7.5%
Q3: Do you feel that the proposed process to establish new dog park locations provides for an open and
fair decision making process for locating dog parks?
57
Yes – 67.5%
No – 25%
No opinion – 7.5%
The full results of the survey included open ended responses are located on the dog park website page.
Appendix 2: Website Page
A webpage was developed containing information concerning meetings, the survey, and resource materials.
Information on the website included the following:
SURVEY ON POTENTIAL NEW DOG PARKS
Your input and feedback are important to us! The desire for additional dog parks is identified in the current
City of Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (an element of the City Master Plan). In an effort to
ensure the Park Advisory Commission is responding to this need in an appropriate manner, the public is being
asked for input on where one or more dog parks could be located and what types of amenities should be
considered for inclusion in new and existing dog parks.
SURVEYS :
We invite everyone to take the dog park survey, whether or not you have a dog. In total, the survey should
take between 5-10 minutes to complete. We greatly appreciate your time, and thank you in advance for
sharing your thoughts. The survey link is www.surveymonkey.com/s/7YXPKXG or please call 734.794.6230
ext. 42590 to receive a paper copy. The survey will remain open through Monday, Aug. 12, 2013.
PUBLIC MEETINGS:
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 7 to 9:00 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm Barn (2781 Packard Road)
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 7 to 9:00 p.m. at Traverwood Library (3333 Traverwood Drive)
Tuesday, March 5, 7-8:30 at City Hall (301 East Huron Street)
EMAIL YOUR INPUT:
a2parks@a2gov.org and visit our website at http://www.a2gov.org/parks.
Persons with disabilities are encouraged to participate in public meetings. Accommodations, including sign
language interpreters, may be arranged by contacting the city clerk’s office at 734.794.6140; via email at
cityclerk@a2gov.org; or by written request addressed/mailed or delivered to the Ann Arbor City Clerk’s
Office, 301 E. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. Requests need to be received at least 48 hours in advance
of the meeting.
PAC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS:
Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Monday, May 5, 2013, 8 to 9:30 a.m., Friday, May 31, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m.,
Friday, June 21, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Monday, July 8, 2013, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Thursday, July 25, 2013, 8 to 9
a.m.., Friday, Aug. 23, 2013, 2:30 to 4 p.m., Friday, Sept. 20, 2013, 8:00 a.m., Friday, Nov. 8, 2013, 9 to
10 a.m., Monday, Nov. 25, 2013, 8 to 9 a.m., Monday, Dec. 2, 2013, 8 to 9 a.m.
58
CITY WIDE PUBLIC MEETINGS:
Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013, 7 to 9 p.m., Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road, Ann Arbor
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013, 7 to 9 p.m., Traverwood Library, 3333 Traverwood Drive (at Huron Parkway)
The Dog Park Subcommittee of the Park Advisory Commission is exploring options for additional dog parks
within the City of Ann Arbor. Meetings are open to the public and a space for public commentary is included
on the agenda.
You can e-mail Parks Planner Amy Kuras or call 734.794.6230 ext. 42590 to receive additional information.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS INCLUDE:
Ingrid Ault
Karen Levin
Missy Stults
Staff support include Amy Kuras, Colin Smith, David Rohr
DOCUMENTS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS REVIEWING INCLUDE:
Dog Park Questionnaire
Dog Park Survey
Dog Park Letter
Dog Park Article
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (PDF)
PAC Dog Park Survey Results (Excel)
The survey results are now available in an Excel spreadsheet format (above) for those interested in delving
deeper into the material. The Excel file can be downloaded and saved to your computer.
Additional cross tabulated survey reports are available upon request. Please email request to David Rohr at
drohr@a2gov.org.
Appendix 3: Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held to obtain general feedback about locations, criteria, and existing parks.
Notes from public meeting held on September 11, 2013
29 members of the public and 5 Park Advisory Commission members attended. The background and an
overview of the input process was presented as well as a summary of the survey. Meeting participants then
were asked to provide feedback.
Discussion about criteria:
Parks are used by many types of people, children, etc.
Adequate space is important.
Big spaces – wide and long for dogs to run.
Pay attention to potential use conflicts; children’s play area at Wurster Park.
59
Permeable soils are important.
Not bordering households.
Distance from neighbors.
Avoid established neighborhood uses.
Drainage – not on slopes, so that feces does not drain into areas where children are playing.
Adequate parking – Old West Side is already full of cars from people who work downtown. There is
traffic congestion. People who would drive to a proposed park would make the situation worse.
What did we look at – want more specifics – how did these come about.
Every site needs to be evaluated on its own merits. The neighborhood is going to need to like it.
Drainage – not only slope away, but how soil perks – permeability.
Can you please reveal which parks informed your criteria?
Baltimore, Provincetown, Madison, and New Haven – lessons learned.
Maintenance:
Why are we considering another dog park when we can’t maintain what we have?
Would help to know mitigation strategies for taking care of what we have.
We need to know how to fix things – do it right before building more dog parks
Budget:
What is the budget?
How much is the partnership with the County?
What is the budget for capital and operating?
Why can’t we cooperate with the County?
Existing Dog Parks:
Users had a lot of complaints about existing dog parks.
Lessons learned – needed to modify parks, volunteers didn’t work out.
Why not reconfigure Swift Run to make it more fun?
Add to Swift Run – sand, pea gravel, cement – surfaces that can be cleaned.
Swift Run – water, filling in of low areas, parking lot, partitioning.
Issues:
Every park is a dog park – everyone lets their dogs run off-leash.
60
Do not want a dog park in West Park.
Focus on one park vs. many parks.
Illegal gatherings.
Dog park licenses – online instead of having to come down to City Hall.
Remedy current dog park issues and learn from it.
Location:
Is there something that can be a walkable amenity from downtown?
It will never be walkable for everyone.
Look at the process in other communities – What is the best distance from houses? What is the minimum
size? People are interested in what makes a good location.
What parameters should we consider for a downtown park?
Identify dead spaces, other spaces that are not parks.
What about newly acquiring areas for dog parks?
Consider spaces that are not currently used as parks. Are there empty lots downtown or parking lots
that could be used as part time dog runs?
Will the city acquire new property for a dog park to avoid existing use conflicts in existing parks?
Be clear about centrally located dog park.
The question of dog park locations needing to be no more than 2 miles away makes me ask “away
from whom?? The people who would like Wurster Park would not be willing to walk to the North Main
City property, but folks closer to that spot would. How will you resolve that?
Why not remodel or use space not currently a park?
What properties have you looked at and eliminated – non-City owned.
Other:
Excited to have a dog park.
How do we hear what cities like Baltimore are doing?
Timeline – when do we expect to arrive at a conclusion?
Park fee with dog licensing fee
61
Notes from public meeting held on September 24, 2013
9 members of the public and 3 Park Advisory Commission members attended. The same presentation was
made as at the first meeting, but then participants were divided into two groups to discuss the criteria and
make suggestions as to specific potential locations.
Input on Proposed Criteria:
Size - people tend to take little dogs to little parks.
Enforcement is crucial – needs to be staffed.
Cleaning up after dogs.
Bar code entry, swipe card.
Swift Run is really huge – it doesn’t need to be that big. People lose track of their dogs.
Drainage – muddy dog park not good, need to rethink surfacing, provide alternatives, make sure any
new areas have proper drainage.
Parking spaces – need to be adequate for anticipated use.
Noise – elevation difference between park and surrounding area – in a valley or on a hill can help.
Keep an eye on historical nature of park; make sure that change in use does not change intention
or character.
Natural feature preservation – no development of sensitive natural features/areas.
Shade – need to make sure there are adequate trees.
Operation – can you control number of dogs using a particular dog park at any one time?
Use conflicts – buffers needed between different types of uses (play areas, etc.).
Connection to river or a moving body of water is a desirable feature.
Ideas for new dog parks:
Fuller Park South – has adequate parking, need to stay away from wetlands.
Kuebler Langford Park – thruway hikers, away from neighbors, noisy highway would cover noise
of barking.
Broadway Park – close to downtown, not much pedestrian traffic, not connected to B2B trail, noise
from trains, away from neighbors.
Veterans Memorial Park – noise offset by traffic, parking adequate, may be too popular, need an
acre minimum for this site.
DTE Property – not owned by City, away from neighbors.
62
Notes from public meeting held on March 5, 2015
Fifteen members of the public and two Park Advisory Commission members attended the meeting. Research
done by the subcommittee was presented, along with proposed revised scoring criteria based on what was
learned.
Comments from attendees about why they came to the meeting:
Would like equal access to city services
Saline dog park – really like it, interested in parks in general
Special place where dogs should be, not around churches and things of that nature
Where could a dog park be placed? Concerned about cleaning up after dogs
Walks in regular parks, don’t think that Ann Arbor is going to make a dog park because we have too
many spaces where people keep their dogs off leash
Dog clean up is an issue and would like to have input on where dog parks could be and where they
shouldn’t be
Concerned about proximity of parks and who is going to maintain the park
Concerned about dog residue, and don’t want dogs around little people and elders because they
could bite, concerned about location around church. Wants to know about methods for choosing dog
parks.
Overview of meeting purpose
There is a long history of advocacy to establish dog parks, and people have very strongly held views
about dog parks
Worked to come up with a consistent and coherent process for locating dog parks, and want to make
sure that the process is as objective as possible
Want to make sure City is on the right track before considering specific sites
Attendees at meeting scored a location, and provided the following feedback about the scoring sheet:
There should be extra points for water bodies for swimming
Change residential buffer to institutional buffer as well, including churches, hospitals, etc.
Buffer from residents isn’t always better as maybe being closer for walkability is desired
Shade criteria is confusing
Use conflict avoidance should be about not just what is in the park, but what is around it
Geography – simplify so that it is about more equitable distribution
Clarify water quality and drainage criteria
63
Water source was confusing – is it about places to drink or swim or both?
Not sure that separating kids from dog parks is a desirable thing, having the kids at the park and
then a place for dogs in the same vicinity can be desirable as well.
Could the scoring be weighted?
Is there wiggle room in the selection criteria in the times of use, etc. It’s not like there is a formula, it is
site by site.
Appendix 4: Research from Other Communities
Staff and Park Advisory Commission subcommittee members performed research to explore best practices
from communities around the country, as well as professional organizations that specialize in pets. The
research included internet searches to find out what type of criteria were being used to site dog parks, as
well as what kind of design criteria were used to establish the areas. In addition to the web searches, staff
and Park Advisory Commission members telephoned and emailed individuals from more than 10 cities to
discuss the successes and struggles associated with their public process, design, and maintenance of dog parks
in their communities. A range of cities were contacted, including several whose population and makeup were
similar to Ann Arbor (university towns), several major cities who have numerous dog parks, and regional
facilities in Michigan and other states in the Midwest with similar climate.
The questions that were asked included the following. Responses are summarized in the charts:
Do you have criteria to site a dog park?
Do you have criteria for design of a dog park?
Do you have a minimum buffer and/or distance between dog parks and existing resident? If so, how
did you arrive at the criteria?
What kind of oversight do you have to enforce rules, monitor behavior of dogs, restrict entry, etc.? Do
you have staff on site?
Do you engage volunteers? If so, how?
Do you have any educational programs for the public, such as dog behavior issues they might
encounter, complaint procedures, etc.?
What type of decision making process was involved to establish the dog park?
Are you satisfied with how your public process panned out? Were there contentious issues? If so, how
did they get resolved?
Do your dog parks include a separate area for small dogs? If so, how large is the area?
What has, in your opinion, worked well in establishment and maintenance of your dog parks?
What would you do differently next time around?
In order to compare the responses that were gathered, the following charts outline the responses received in
categories to allow for comparison.
64
Several cities, including Denver, CO; Salt Lake County, UT; and Oakland, CA have master plan documents
that were used to provide data. Others were telephoned and emailed, and others had useful information on
their websites. These were all utilized to compare criteria. Not all cities had criteria for every category
included in the charts, but there was sufficient information to provide comparative information.
65
Appendix 5: Charts Summarizing Data from Other Cities
66
Appendix 6: Existing Dog Park Rules
DOG PARK USERS
PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING RULES
1. A permit is required to use this facility. For registrations call 994-2725 City, 222-
6600 County.
2. Dogs must display current registration, license, and vaccination tags.
3. Users of this facility do so at their own risk. Dog behavior can be unpredictable
around other dogs and strangers.
4. Dog owners and handlers are strictly liable for any damage or injury caused by their
dogs.
5. Dog handlers must be 16 years of age or older.
6. Children under age 15 are not allowed in the park unless accompanied by an adult.
7. All dogs must remain on leash until inside the designated fenced area.
8. Dogs must not be left unattended. Dogs must be in view and under the voice
command of their handler at all times.
9. Dog handlers are required to clean up and dispose of their dogs’ waste.
10. Dogs in heat and puppies under 4 months of age are not permitted in the park.
11. Dogs that fight or exhibit aggressive behavior must be immediately removed from
the park.
12. No more than two dogs per handler are allowed at one time.
13. No smoking, food, or alcohol is allowed within the park.
14. Professional dog trainers shall not use the park to conduct their business.
15. Failure to comply with posted rules is subject to citation, expulsion, or arrest, as well
as dog impound.
Park Hours are dawn to dusk
(Subject to closures during required maintenance operations.)
Call 911 for Emergency Assistance
67
Appendix 7: Scoring Sheet for Placement Criteria
68
MEMORANDUM
To:Saint Anthony Village City Council
From:Jeff Spiess, Police Captain
Date:October 25, 2022 City Council Meeting
Request:Approve Resolution 22-075 to Join Fencing Consortium
BACKGROUND
In the spring of 2021, several police agencies in Hennepin County expressed interest in exploring the possibility
of using shared resources to secure a fencing/barrier system to protect critical city infrastructure in the event of
a civil unrest situation. The goal was to have an anti-scale fencing structure readily available, within close
proximity that could be set up within hours. A Fence Working Group was formed with members of several
agencies from the Hennepin County area, to include police, fire, public works, and emergency management.
The group met several times over the next several months to hear from industry experts, vendors, and evaluate
various products through in-person demonstrations and displays. The vendor list was reduced to two and
discussions on logistics and cost information was initiated. Each agency evaluated their need and blueprint for
fencing and a final individual approximate cost was developed. Additional agencies from the seven-county
metropolitan area have since joined the working group. In September 2022, the Consortium formally started.
In late 2021 and early 2022, members of the St. Anthony Police, Fire, and Public Works met to discuss potential
need for fencing in the City of St. Anthony. A map covering the water treatment facility behind City Hall was
identified as a critical structure needing protection. A map was developed and submitted to the Fencing
Workgroup, which in turn estimated the total annual cost to the City of $6,350. An effort to secure $5 million
dollars in State Funding toward this project was initiated, which was likely to reduce the cost to each individual
city by at least 50 percent, but was unsuccessful.
The Fence Consortium will identify a fencing vendor to own and store fencing in the metro area. The Fence
Consortium, made up of members of police, fire, and public works, will provide staffing for setting up the fence
and for security during its installation. The team would train three times per year and each individual city would
be responsible to cover costs associated with their personnel assigned to the team.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the joint powers agreement to join the Fencing Consortium
69
10/20/2022
1
St. Anthony City Council Meeting
October 25, 2022
Captain Jeff Spiess Presenting
Background
Spring 2021 with Hennepin Chiefs of Police
Quickly grew beyond just Hennepin
As quickly as possible (hours, not days) get anti‐scale
fencing up around critical city infrastructure after a
critical incident
Current constraining factors
Fencing product availability
Transportation of fencing to site (including
loading/unloading)
Staffing/equipment for setup
Timely response capability
70
10/20/2022
2
Key Terms
Working Group
The group of people from all the agencies that have come
together to work on this issue
Legal working group –the people working on the JPA
Fence Consortium
The legal group that will be established by the JPA. Does
not yet exist.
JPA
The legal document that will establish the Consortium.
Each agency will need their governing body to approve
the JPA to be a member. This is the point of actual
commitment (financial and otherwise).
Fence Working Group Timeline
June/July 2021 –Fencing experts
Metropolitan Airports Commission
US Secret Service
August/September 2021 –Met with vendors
ARX Perimeters (ARX), Premiere Global Productions (PGP),
Long Fence, Hercules
October 2021
Decision on vendors, preparation work to get cost info
Start logistics conversations
November/December 2021
Start legal consortium (JPA) framework
Continue logistics/cost info work
August 2022 ‐Presentation to City Council at Work Session
September 2022– Consortium formally starts
71
10/20/2022
3
Early Working Group Members
Brooklyn Center
Burnsville
Crystal
DHS Protective Security Advisor
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Golden Valley
Hopkins
Long Lake
Metro Airports Commission
Maple Grove
Minnetonka
Mound
New Hope
Plymouth
Richfield
Shorewood
St Anthony
St Paul
University of Minnesota
US Secret Service
Wayzata
West Metro Fire
25 agencies currently have signed JPAs.
5 more presenting to city councils this month.
Logistics
Vendor
Would own and store enough fencing in 7 County metro
area to cover largest consortium PD
Would be responsible for transporting the fence from the
storage area to the site (and back)
Consortium
PW staffing for unloading and setting up fence
PD mutual aid/field force could be used to secure area
during setup
The Fence Deployment team would train 3 times a year (1
day each) so they are reasonably fast at setup
72
10/20/2022
4
Staffing
Each member city would have some of their PW staff
assigned to the fence deployment team
Statewide PW Mutual Aid Pact
Team total strength around 90 people
Target deployment staffing 33% (30 people) in 3 hours 24/7/365
Each member city would cover their own PW staff time
For training (3 days per year)
For deployments (would likely be OT)
Just like MFF, PD, or fire mutual aid
PD and FD staffing would be based on need and
conditions using existing agreements
Cost splitting
Each consortium member provides a map with their
needs
8’ high fence length
Location of vehicle gates
Location of pedestrian doors
The length to cover largest PD is determined
Each City pays their percentage of the actual cost based
on their percentage of the total fence length
73
10/20/2022
5
Cost development
All these factors impact cost
Fencing storage location(s)
Fencing transportation
Fence response time
Amount of fencing, gates, and doors
As the group grows, the opportunity is there to increase the fence amount
with the cost being spread out more.
St. Anthony Plan
Estimated cost to City of St. Anthony:
$6,350.00 annually
74
10/20/2022
6
Potential State Funding
State funding for the purchase of anti‐scale fencing for
the Fencing Consortium will significantly reduce the on‐
going cost each Consortium member will pay for the
storage, maintenance, and transportation of the fence.
This reduction in cost will improve equity in accessibility
to this de‐escalation and safety tool for communities
across not only the Seven County Metro area, but also the
state as a whole.
$5 million ask
No state funding was received. Will try again in 2023
Thank you
Questions?
75
1
CR225-476-758705.v8
FENCING CONSORTIUM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS FENCING CONSORTIUM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is
made and entered into by and among the Governmental Units identified in the attached Exhibit A
(each a “Member” or collectively the “Members”).
RECITALS
A. The civil unrest and resulting negative impacts on mental health, damage to buildings,
and a reduction in overall safety experienced in the Seven County Metropolitan Area in
recent years has given rise to a need for communities to have ready access to anti-
scalable fencing. The anti-scale fencing can be set up to protect public buildings, critical
infrastructure, and other key locations to de-escalate tensions between law enforcement
and protestors as well as reduce the need to rely on crowd control measures to protect
such locations from violent and destructive actors.
B. Appropriate fencing to serve this purpose is produced by few vendors, currently all of
which are located outside of the state.
C. This type of fencing is expensive and the delays associated with attempting to identify
and secure the delivery of fencing during the response to a critical incident may result in
unnecessary risks to personnel and public property.
D. By pooling resources and working cooperatively, communities can access high quality
fencing, trained personnel, and related resources to assemble it in as efficient manner as
possible to support de-escalation measures with protestors and protect facilities from
violent and destructive actors.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual agreements and understandings, and intending to be
legally bound, the Members hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND PURPOSE
1.1. Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have
the meaning given them in this section.
(a) Additional Member. “Additional Member” means a Governmental Unit that
submits a Membership Resolution after the Effective Date and that the Board
votes to accept as a Member of the Fencing Consortium.
(b) Agreement. “Agreement” means this Fencing Consortium Joint Powers
Agreement.
76
2
CR225-476-758705.v8
(c) Board. “Board” means the Fencing Consortium Joint Board established by this
Agreement.
(d) Call Out. “Call Out” means a request by a Requesting Member to the Board
requesting the deployment of the Fencing.
(e) Critical Incident. “Critical Incident” means an event or occurrence that occurs
within a Governmental Unit that is reasonably anticipated to result in, or that does
result in, civil unrest focused against one or more public buildings, infrastructure,
or other critical site with the Governmental Unit.
(f) Deployment Site. “Deployment Site” means the specific location at which the
Fence is to be assembled.
(g) Deployment Team. “Deployment Team” means the public works personnel or
others assigned by each Member who are responsible for responding to requests
by Members to assemble and disassemble the Fencing at a Member’s Deployment
Site in accordance with its Fencing Preplan.
(h) Deployment Team Manager. “Deployment Team Manager” is the member of the
Deployment Team designated as supervisor and who has operational control over
the deployment and demobilization of the Fencing.
(i) Effective Date. “Effective Date” means the date this Agreement goes into effect
and the date by which Original Members must adopt the Membership Resolution.
The Effective Date is September 2, 2022.
(j) Extended Membership Area. “Extended Membership Area” means the area
established by the Board outside of the Seven County Metropolitan Area in which
Governmental Units are eligible to request membership in the Fencing
Consortium.
(k) Fencing. “Fencing” means the non-scalable, portable, free-standing fence secured
by the Board and made available to Members under this Agreement.
(l) Fencing Preplan. “Fencing Preplan” means a plan developed by a Governmental
Unit showing the general location and length of the Fencing needed and the type
and location of gates within the Fencing.
(m) Governmental Unit. “Governmental Unit” means a local government or other
political subdivision of the State that is authorized under Minnesota Statutes,
section 471.59 to enter into a joint powers agreement. The term also includes
state agencies and joint powers entities that own a public building.
(n) Lease. “Lease” means the lease agreement between the Board and the Vendor to
secure the Fencing for the Fencing Consortium and that sets out the terms for the
77
3
CR225-476-758705.v8
storge, delivery, and maintenance of the Fencing. The Lease may also establish
the use charge the Requesting Member is required to pay the Vendor for the
actual use of the Fencing.
(o) Member. “Member” means an Original Member or an Additional Member. The
term is used generally in this Agreement to refer to an individual current member
Governmental Unit or, in its plural form, to all current member Governmental
Units. A Governmental Unit must remain in good standing under this Agreement
to remain a Member of the Fencing Consortium.
(p) Member Assessment. “Member Assessment” means the amount determined
annually by the Board to pay the costs of the Fencing Consortium and which is
invoiced to each Member.
(q) Membership Resolution. “Membership Resolution” means the resolution form a
Governmental Unit adopts to join the Fencing Consortium. Any resolution that is
not substantively the same in all respects as the form resolution developed for
membership shall not constitute a Membership Resolution.
(r) Notification System. “Notification System” means the communications or alert
system, or systems, selected by the Board to issue a Call Out for the deployment
of the Deployment Team and Fencing to a Requesting Member’s Governmental
Unit.
(s) Original Member. “Original Member” means a Governmental Unit that
completed all requirements to enter into this Agreement prior to the Effective
Date.
(t) Public Works Mutual Aid Pact. “Public Works Mutual Aid Pact” means the
Public Works Joint Powers Mutual Aid Agreement, which was originally
effective as of July 1, 2018 and is incorporated herein by reference.
(u) Requesting Member. “Requesting Member” means a Member who makes a
request to the Board for the deployment of the Fencing in its Governmental Unit.
(v) Seven County Metropolitan Area. “Seven County Metropolitan Area” means the
counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington.
(w) Staging Area. “Staging Area” means the location identified for the Deployment
Team to gather at in response to a Call Out before convoying to the Deployment
Site.
(x) Surcharge. “Surcharge” means the amount an Additional Member is required to
pay to join the Fencing Consortium as determined by the Board. The Surcharge is
in addition to the amount the Additional Member is required to pay based on the
length of its Fencing needs as shown in its Fencing Preplan. The Surcharge
78
4
CR225-476-758705.v8
includes the amount the Member is to pay for the Member Assessment for the
year in which the Governmental Unit becomes a Member and any buy-in costs as
determined by the Board.
(y) Vendor. “Vendor” means the fencing company selected to provide the Fencing to
the Fencing Consortium.
1.2. Purpose. It is the general purpose of this Agreement to:
(a) To establish the Fencing Consortium, the responsibilities of the Members toward
the Fencing Consortium, and to establish the “Fencing Consortium Joint Board”
to govern the Fencing Consortium and its operations;
(b) To authorize the Board to obtain and provide for the storage and deployment of
Fencing in response to a Critical Incident and for other purposes as provided in
this Agreement and as determined by the Board;
(c) To authorize the Board to negotiate and enter into an agreement with a Vendor to
obtain the Fencing and provide for its storage, delivery to, and return from a
Requesting Member’s Governmental Unit;
(d) To authorize the Board to establish policies and procedures for the deployment of
the Fencing, the training and deployment of the Deployment Team, and on other
matters as needed to achieve the purposes of this Agreement;
(e) To authorize the Board to determine the Governmental Units eligible for
membership in the Fencing Consortium, including expanding the eligible territory
as it determines is appropriate; and
(f) To authorize the Board, upon deliberation and continued communication with the
Members, to revise the initial structure of the Fencing Consortium over time as it
may determine is in the best interests of the Members to do things such as moving
from a leasing arrangement to purchasing the Fencing and to provide for its
storage, maintenance, and transportation.
ARTICLE II
FENCING CONSORTIUM ESTABLISHED
2.1. Established. There is hereby established, by the execution of this Agreement, the
“Fencing Consortium” as a joint powers entity formed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
section 471.59, which is to be managed and operated by the Board pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement.
2.2. Scope. This Agreement applies to those Governmental Units that are Members of the
Fencing Consortium and provides for the operation of the Fencing Consortium by a
Board of Directors elected as provided herein.
79
5
CR225-476-758705.v8
ARTICLE III
MEMBERSHIP
3.1. Original Members. A Governmental Unit that adopts and submits the Membership
Resolution to join the Fencing Consortium before the Effective Date shall be considered
an Original Member under this Agreement. A Governmental Unit is eligible to be an
Original Member of the Fencing Consortium if it satisfies all of the following:
(a) Is a member of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact;
(b) Is within the Seven County Metropolitan Area;
(c) Has submitted a Fencing Preplan prior to the Effective Date; and
(d) Has properly adopted and submitted a Membership Resolution prior to the
Effective Date.
The Governmental Unit shall submit its Membership Resolution to the Chief of Police in
the City of Crystal. The Membership Resolutions shall be transferred to the Board once
it is formed. Membership Resolutions adopted after the Effective Date shall be sent to
the Board.
3.2. Additional Members. After the Effective Date, a Governmental Unit may request to
become an Additional Member of the Fencing Consortium if it satisfies the following:
(a) Is a member of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact;
(b) Is located within the Seven County Metropolitan Area or within the Extended
Membership Area as determined by the Board;
(c) Submits a Fencing Preplan;
(d) Submits the fully adopted Membership Resolution; and
(e) The Board votes to accept the Governmental Unit as an Additional Member.
Additional Members are required to pay a Surcharge to the Fencing Consortium in the
amount determined by the Board, and to comply with such additional requirements as
may reasonably be imposed by the Board.
3.3. Exception. The membership requirement to be a member of the Public Works Mutual
Aid Pact is to establish a mechanism through which local public works staff can be
utilized to assist in the mobilization and demobilization of the Fencing within the
Governmental Unit. However, there are entities that do not have their own public works
staff, desire to become a Member of the Fencing Consortium, and for which local support
80
6
CR225-476-758705.v8
can be provided through another Governmental Unit. Therefore, a Governmental Unit
that does not have a public works department or public works employees is not required
to be a member of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact to be eligible to become a Member
of the Fencing Consortium, provided the following are complied with to the extent
applicable:
(a) If the Governmental Unit is a joint undertaking among other Governmental
Units, the community in which any of the Governmental Unit’s buildings are
located and to which its Fencing Preplan applies must be a member of the Public
Works Mutual Aid Pact; or
(b) If the Government Unit relies on the county sheriff’s department as the primary
source of law enforcement services, that county must be a member of the Public
Works Mutual Aid Pact.
3.4. Requirement of Good Standing. Continued membership in the Fencing Consortium
shall be contingent upon: paying the annual Member Assessment and any additional
charges as determined by the Board as provided herein; making public works staff
available to participate as members of the Deployment Team; and on-going compliance
with the other requirements, terms, and conditions of this Agreement and the policies and
procedures adopted by the Board.
3.5. Withdrawing from Membership. A Member may withdraw from the Fencing
Consortium as provided in Article XI of this Agreement.
ARTICLE IV
FENCING CONSORTIUM JOINT BOARD
4.1. Established. There is hereby established the “Fencing Consortium Joint Board.” The
Board shall consist of five Directors elected by the Members in accordance with this
Article. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Fencing Consortium. The
Director positions shall be assigned as follows:
(a) Two Directors representing law enforcement;
(b) One Director representing fire;
(c) One Director representing public works; and
(d) One Director representing emergency managers.
4.2. Initial Directors. The Board shall initially be comprised of the following Directors
(“Initial Board”):
81
7
CR225-476-758705.v8
(a) Ryan Murphy, Commander, Special Operations Unit, Saint Paul Police
Department and Ryan Seibert, Chief of Police, City of Chaska, representing law
enforcement;
(b) Ward Parker, Assistant Chief Operations, City of Eden Prairie, representing fire;
(c) Daniel Ruiz, Director of Operations & Maintenance, City of Brooklyn Park,
representing public works; and
(d) Doug Berglund, Director, Emergency Management, Washington County Sheriff’s
Office, representing emergency managers.
The Initial Board shall be responsible for Organizing the Board and the Fence
Consortium. The Initial Board shall conduct an election in 2022 for Members to elect
three Directors to the Board. An election will then be held in 2023 for Members to elect
the remaining two Directors to the Board. Those elected in 2022 shall assume their
positions effective on January 1, 2023 and those elected in 2023 shall assume their
positions on January 1, 2024. The Initial Board shall determine which positions are up
for election in 2022 and 2023, except the two law enforcement Director positions shall be
elected in separate years.
4.3. Director Eligibility. To be eligible to be elected to the Board a person must be currently
employed by a Member and actively serving in the profession the person is proposed to
represent on the Board. If a Director loses eligibility to continue serving on the Board,
the position shall be deemed vacant and the vacancy filled as provided herein.
4.4. Term. Each Director serves a two-year term commencing on January 1. The terms shall
be staggered to minimize the number of Directors up for election in the same year. The
Initial Board shall determine the terms and the staggering of the positions as part of
adopting the bylaws. A vacancy in the office of Director shall be filled by appointment
of the Board until the next election, at which time the position shall be up for election for
the remainder of the term.
4.5. Election of Directors. The annual election of Directors shall occur in accordance with
this Agreement and the bylaws established by the Board. This process is not subject to
federal, state, or local election laws or procedures. Instead, the intent is to provide a
reasonable means for Members to nominate candidates and to select those whom they
wish to serve on the Board. Each Member in good standing when the nomination process
begins has an opportunity to nominate people from its Governmental Unit for any or all
the open positions on the Board. All persons nominated to a position must be eligible to
represent that position on the Board. The Board shall collect the nominations and prepare
a ballot to be distributed among the Members for a vote. Each Member in good standing
shall have one vote on each open position. A Member must determine for itself who is
authorized to submit nominations and cast the vote on its behalf. The name of the
Member submitting the ballot must be on the ballot. The Board shall tabulate the votes
and provide the Members a list of the persons elected to the Board. The conducting of
82
8
CR225-476-758705.v8
the nomination and election process shall occur early enough in a year to allow the newly
elected Directors to take their positions on the Board as of January 1.
4.6. Director Duties. Directors are responsible for carrying out the duties of the Board under
this Agreement in a diligent and timely manner. If a Director fails to attend three
consecutive Board meetings without reasonable cause, the Board may declare the office
vacant and fill the position by appointment. The position will then be up for election at
the next election for the remainder of the term.
4.7. Board Officers. Each year at its annual meeting the Board shall elect from among its
Directors a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The Board shall also appoint a Secretary/Treasurer,
which is not required to be selected from among the Directors. If the Secretary/Treasurer
is not a Director, the person shall not have a vote. The Chair shall act as the presiding
officer at Board meetings and the Vice-Chair shall act as the presiding officer in the
absence of the Chair. The Secretary/Treasurer shall take the minutes of Board meetings
and shall serve as the finance manager for the Fencing Consortium. The Board shall
adopt by-laws to establish its own procedures, provided such procedures are consistent
with the purposes of this Agreement.
4.8. Board Meetings. The Board shall hold regular meetings on the schedule as established
in its bylaws. The Board may also hold special meetings as needed upon the call of the
Chair or upon the written request of two Directors given to the Secretary/Treasurer.
Meetings of the Board are subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 13D). The Secretary/Treasurer shall inform all Directors of special
meetings, maintain a schedule of the Board’s regular meetings, and shall post notice of
any special meetings on the bulletin board designated by the Board for such notices or, if
a bulletin board is not designated, upon the outside door of the building in which the
Board meets. The Board may hold emergency meetings and such other meetings as
allowed by law. The Board shall hold an annual meeting in January or in such other
month as designated by the Board. The annual meeting may be held together with a
regular meeting.
4.9. Voting. A majority of the Directors (three) shall constitute a quorum of the Board to
meet and conduct the business of the Board. Each Director shall have an equal, non-
weighted, vote. Unless specifically indicated otherwise herein, a majority vote of the
Directors present at a meeting, if at least a quorum is present, shall be required for the
Board to take action on any issue that comes before it. A Director must be present at a
meeting to vote and shall not vote by proxy. A Director may be considered present and
vote from a remote location to the extent allowed under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13D.
4.10. Powers of the Board.
(a) To take all actions necessary and convenient to discharge its duty to lease Fencing
and to make it available to Members pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
83
9
CR225-476-758705.v8
(b) Establish policies and procedures for requesting, deploying, using, demobilizing,
and returning the Fencing, and on such other operational matters as the Board
may determines is appropriate. This power includes, but is not limited to, further
refining the definition of Critical Incident as may be needed and otherwise
identifying situations in which deployment of the Fencing is automatic and when
it is discretionary with the Board.
(c) Authorize one or more of its Directors to receive request from a Requesting
Member and to issue a Call Out of the Fencing to a Critical Incident in
accordance with established policies and procedures.
(d) Obtain the Fencing initially by lease, or purchase with State appropriation, and
then determine over time whether to purchase part or all of the Fencing provided
under this Agreement. If the Fencing is purchased, to provide for its storage and
deployment.
(e) Select the notification system for the Call Out.
(f) To adopt bylaws and rules or policies consistent with this Agreement as required
to effectively exercise the powers, or accomplish the purposes, of the Fencing
Consortium;
(g) To interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement in a manner that furthers
its purpose and intent including, but not limited to, determining the eligibility of a
Governmental Unit to become a Member;
(h) To adopt an annual operating and capital budget, including a statement of sources
of funding and allocation of costs to Members;
(i) To establish a system to communicate budget and other information of interest to
Members;
(j) To enter into contracts in its own name;
(k) Contract with an auditing firm to perform financial audits of the Fencing
Consortium as the Board determines is appropriate;
(l) To purchase any insurance and indemnity or surety bonds as necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement;
(m) To seek, apply for, and accept appropriations (including legislative
appropriations), grants, gifts, loans of money or other assistance as permitted by
law from any person or entity, whether public or private;
(n) To sue;
84
10
CR225-476-758705.v8
(o) To annually charge and collect from Members a Member Assessment as needed
to pay the on-going costs of the Fencing Consortium;
(p) To determine and require the payment of a Surcharge by Additional Members
joining the Fencing Consortium; and
(q) To exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to carry out the purposes of
this Agreement provided such powers are consistent with the purposes of the
Agreement and are exercised in accordance with the applicable statutory powers
of the Members.
4.11. Powers Not Delegated. The Members expressly reserve for themselves the following
powers, which shall not be deemed delegated to, and may not be exercised by, the Board:
(a) Hire employees;
(b) Purchase real property;
(c) Issue bonds; or
(d) Undertake or otherwise perform any functions exceeding the general scope and
purpose of this Agreement.
4.12. Specific Duties of the Board. The Board shall exercise the powers provided it under this
Agreement to perform, in addition to the other duties provided for in this Agreement, the
following specific duties:
(a) Lease Fence. The Board shall enter into a Lease with the Vendor to obtain the
Fencing and trailer(s) for transporting the Fencing. The Board shall ensure it
secures and maintains a sufficient length of Fencing to cover the Member with the
longest Fencing lengths as shown on the Fencing Preplans, rounded up to the
nearest 500 feet. Initially, the Board shall base the amount of Fencing on the
Fencing Preplans submitted by the Original Members. As Additional Members
join the Fencing Consortium, the Board shall consider the Fencing needs and may
secure additional Fencing as it determines is needed.
(b) Fence Storage and Transport. The Lease shall require the Vendor to store the
Fencing at a location agreeable to the Board, deliver the Fencing to the identified
Staging Area upon the Board’s request within the response timeframe identified
in the Lease, and to address other transportation needs as specified in the Lease.
(c) Select Notification System. The Board shall select a Notification Systems that
will be used by Directors to Call Out the Deployment Team to a Requesting
Member’s Governmental Unit.
85
11
CR225-476-758705.v8
(d) Reports. The Board shall prepare and distribute such reports to the Members as
the Board determines are necessary to keep them informed of the Fencing
Consortium’s activities. The Board shall determine the best method for
distributing such reports.
4.13. Office. The initial office of the Fencing Consortium shall be selected by the Board. The
Board may change the location of the office as it determines is appropriate. The Board
will hold its meetings at the designated office, but may also meet at such other locations
as it determines appropriate to carry out its duties.
4.14. Disbursements. Except as otherwise provided, all unbudgeted disbursements and
expenditures of the Fencing Consortium shall be approved by the Board. All checks
issued by the Fencing Consortium from its funds shall be co-signed by two Directors
designated by the Board.
4.15. Fiscal Agent. The Board may appoint, and enter into agreements with, a fiscal agent for
the Fencing Consortium and may change the fiscal agent from time to time as it deems
necessary. The fiscal agent may be a Member Governmental Unit. The Board may
delegate authority to the fiscal agent to act on its behalf as the Board deems appropriate
and in accordance with applicable laws.
ARTICLE V
DEPLOYMENT OF THE FENCING
5.1. Automatic Deployment. The Fencing shall be made available for automatic deployment
upon the occurrence of a Critical Incident in a Member’s Governmental Unit. The
Requesting Member shall notify a Director of a Critical Incident and a Director shall
utilize the designated Notification System to Call Out the Deployment Team for
deployment of the Fencing. The Deployment Team shall then respond to the Requesting
Member to unload and assemble the Fencing at the Deployment Site. The process to
request deployment and demobilization of the Fencing shall occur in accordance with this
Agreement and the policies and procedures adopted by the Board. The Deployment
Team Manager shall be responsible for coordinating the deployment and demobilization
of the Fencing.
5.2. Requesting Member Obligations. A Requesting Member requesting deployment of the
Fencing for a Critical Incident occurring in the Member’s jurisdiction shall be responsible
for the following:
(a) Providing security for the Deployment Team while it is conducting its work at the
Deployment Site;
(b) Provide any equipment that may be needed to deploy or demobilize the Fencing that
is not provided by the Vendor;
86
12
CR225-476-758705.v8
(c) Pay the Vendor charges for the actual use of the Fencing. Such payments are to be
made directly to the Vendor unless directed otherwise by the Board;
(d) Providing food, water, first aid, and similar support to the Deployment Team as
may reasonably be needed;
(e) Contacting the Board or the Board’s designee if there are any issues with the
Fencing once it is in place; and
(f) Complying with Board policies and procedures applicable to a Requesting Member,
including avoiding any activities that may unreasonably damage the Fencing or
expose the Deployment Team to an unreasonable risk.
5.3. Discretionary Deployment. A Member may make a request to the Board for the
deployment of the Fencing in the Member’s Governmental Unit for an event or
occurrence other than a Critical Incident. The deployment of the Fencing for something
other than a Critical Incident is left to the sole discretion of the Board. The Board shall
consider all such requests at a meeting and determine whether to approve the Member’s
request. The Board shall adopt criteria or standards for determining when to allow the
discretionary deployment of the Fencing and the requesting Member’s obligations if the
request is approved. The Board may delegate the authority to one or more Directors to
determine whether to allow the discretionary deployment of the Fencing based on the
criteria established by the Board.
5.4. Non-Member Deployment. The Board shall adopt standards and requirements for
determining whether to allow the deployment of the Fencing in response to a Critical
Incident that occurred in a non-member Governmental Unit. Nothing in this Agreement
obligates the Fencing Consortium to deploy the Fencing to a non-member Governmental
Unit.
5.5. No Guarantee. The Members understand and agree the deployment of the Fencing by
the Deployment Team is a cooperative undertaking and that the Fencing Consortium
cannot guarantee a certain response time or make any representations or warranties
regarding response times, the Fencing, its assembly, or effectiveness. The Deployment
Team will endeavor to respond as quickly as possible to a Critical Incident and to place
the Fencing as shown in the Requesting Member’s Fencing Preplan as provided in this
Agreement and in accordance with Board policies and procedures.
5.6. Demobilization. The Member who receives the Fencing in response to a Critical
Incident shall work with the Fencing Consortium to determine when to initiate the
demobilization of the Fencing from the Deployment Site. For a discretionary deployment
of the fence, the demobilization date shall be determined prior to the deployment. The
Deployment Team shall be responsible for disassembling the Fencing as part of the
demobilization. The Board shall establish such procedures and policies as may be needed
to address the demobilization of the Fencing. The Board has the authority to recall the
Fencing from a Member if it determines there is a more critical need for the Fencing in
87
13
CR225-476-758705.v8
another Governmental Unit that cannot be fulfilled by the remaining Fencing held by the
Fencing Consortium.
ARTICLE VI
MEMBERSHIP COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS
6.1. Original Member Costs. Each Original Member shall be responsible for paying a share
of the Fencing costs based on the length of fence indicated in its Fencing Preplan as a
percentage of the total amount of initial Fencing to be leased by the Board. The Board
shall determine the amount each Original Member is required to pay and provide each an
invoice together with a sheet showing the division of costs. Invoice shall be paid within
45 days of receipt.
6.2. Additional Member Costs. Each Additional Member shall be required to pay their
share of the Fencing costs calculated as if they were an Original Member. Each
Additional Member shall also be required to pay a Surcharge in the amount determined
by the Board. The Surcharge is to pay the Additional Member’s portion of the Member
Assessment, any buy-in costs to cover a share of the Fencing and related costs, and to
partially reimburse the costs paid by the existing Members. The Board shall apply the
buy-in amounts collected to reduce the future charges to the existing Members.
6.3. Member Assessments. In addition to the initial Fencing costs each Member is required
to pay, Members shall also be assessed for the on-going costs to operate and maintain the
Fencing Consortium. These operational costs will be divided based on the Fencing costs
formula and paid by each Member as a Member Assessment. The formula shall take into
account the total length of Fencing held by the Fencing Consortium and then divided by
the length of each Member’s Fencing needs as indicated in the Fencing Preplan. The
Board shall, as part of the annual budget, determine the total amount of the Member
Assessments and the specific amount to be assessed each Member to pay the anticipated
Fencing Consortium costs in the upcoming year.
6.4. Payment of Member Assessments. The Fencing Consortium shall invoice Members for
their Member Assessment amount for the upcoming year. Invoices are to be sent no later
than January 15th in the year for which the assessment is being imposed. Members shall
pay their invoices in full within 45 days from the date of the invoice.
6.5. Default. Any Member who breaches or otherwise fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, failure to pay its Member
Assessment in full by the due date, shall be considered in default of this Agreement. Any
dispute regarding whether a Member is in default shall be determined by a vote of the
Board. A Member shall not be considered in default until it has been notified in writing
by the Board of the condition placing it in default. The notice of default shall indicate the
Member is not in good standing and may be expelled if the default is not cured within 90
days. If a Member fails to fully cure a default within 90 days of the notice of default, the
Board may issue a written notice of expulsion from the Fencing Consortium. Upon such
notice, the Governmental Unit is no longer a Member of the Fencing Consortium as if the
88
14
CR225-476-758705.v8
Governmental Unit voluntarily elected to terminate its membership in the Fencing
Consortium as provided herein.
ARTICLE VII
MEMBER STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
7.1. Public Works Staff. Each Member is expected to assign member(s) of its public works
staff to serve on the Deployment Team to train with the Fencing and to participate in the
unloading, assembly, and demobilization of the Fencing at a Deployment Site. The
providing of public works staff is through the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact and is at
each Member’s own cost.
7.2. Training. The Deployment Team shall train with the Fencing at least three times a year
to familiarize the Deployment Team with the Fencing and to help ensure its rapid
assembly at a Deployment Site in response to a Call Out. The Board shall work with the
Deployment Team to determine a reasonable training schedule that does not negatively
impact their regular duties.
7.3. Employees. The members of the Deployment Team are not employees of the Fencing
Consortium. The assigned members shall remain employees of their Governmental Unit
for all purposes including, but not limited to, workers’ compensation coverage.
7.4. Equipment. Any damage to or loss of Member equipment utilized by the Deployment
Team shall be addressed as provided in the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact.
7.5. Liability. Liability for the acts of the Deployment Team when responding to a Call Out
shall be addressed in accordance with the terms of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact.
For the purposes of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact, the Requesting Member shall be
the “Requesting Party” and each of the Members assigning personnel to the Deployment
Team shall be a “Sending Party.”
ARTICLE VIII
BUDGETING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
8.1. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Fencing Consortium is the calendar year.
8.2. Annual Budget. The Board shall prepare and adopt an annual budget as provided in this
section.
(a) Proposed Budget. The Board shall prepare and approve a proposed budget for the
upcoming fiscal year. The proposed budget shall account for all anticipated costs in
89
15
CR225-476-758705.v8
the upcoming year and indicate the amounts proposed to be assessed to the
Members.
(b) Notice to Members. The Board shall adopt a proposed budget and distribute it to
the Members by no later than June 1st each year. Members may submit written
comments to the Board regarding the proposed budget by no later than July 1 st.
(c) Final Budget. The Board shall consider the comments received from Members and
shall act to adopt a final budget by no later than August 31st. The Board shall
distribute a copy of the adopted annual budget to the Members. To reduce
administrative costs given the potential number of Members, the Board may send
notices and otherwise communicate with Members using email messages in lieu of
mailing.
ARTICLE IX
INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
9.1 Insurance. The Fencing Consortium shall purchase and maintain such insurance policies
as the Board determines is necessary and appropriate to cover the Fencing Consortium,
the Board, its operations, and, if required, the Fencing. By purchasing insurance the
Members, the Fencing Consortium, and the Board do not waive, and shall not be
construed as having waived, any exemptions, immunities, or limitations on liability
provided by any applicable Minnesota Law, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466
and section 471.59, subdivision 1a. Any uninsured liabilities incurred by the Fencing
Consortium shall be paid by the Members in the same percentage as their Member
Assessments as set out in this Agreement.
9.2 Director Indemnification . The Fencing Consortium shall defend and indemnify its
Directors from any claim or damages levied against a Director arising out of the
Director’s lawful acts or omissions made or occurring in the good faith performance of
their duties on the Board. The Fencing Consortium is not required to indemnify a
Director for any act or omission for which the Director is guilty of malfeasance, willful
neglect of duty, or bad faith.
9.3 Member Indemnification. The Fencing Consortium shall hold the Members harmless,
individually and collectively, and will defend and indemnify the Members for any claims,
suits, demands or causes of action for any damages or injuries based on allegations of
negligence or omissions by the Fencing Consortium. The Fencing Consortium’s duty to
indemnify does not constitute, and shall not be construed as, a waiver by either the
Fencing Consortium or any or all Members of any exemptions, immunities, or limitations
on liability provided by law or of being treated as a single governmental unit as provided
in Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subdivision 1a.
9.4 Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, this Agreement and the activities
carried out hereunder thereof are intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative
activity” and it is the intent of the Members that they, together with the Board, shall be
90
16
CR225-476-758705.v8
deemed a “single governmental unit” for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in
Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subdivision 1a. For purposes of the statute, each
Member to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of
the other Members.
SECTION X
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
10.1 Dispute Resolution Process. The Members agree to engage in good faith to attempt to
resolve any disputes that may arise over the establishment, operation, or maintenance of
the Fencing Consortium. If a dispute is not resolved informally, the Members agree to
use the following process to attempt to resolve any dispute they may have related to the
Fencing Consortium.
(a) Written Notice of Dispute. Any Member with a dispute regarding the Fencing
Consortium or the Board may submit a written explanation of its dispute to the
Fencing Consortium and to each Member. The Board shall make the email list of
Members available for the purpose of providing this notice. The explanation of
the dispute must be detailed, not repetitive of a dispute already addressed by the
Board regarding the same Member, relate directly to a matter within the scope of
the Fencing Consortium or of the Board’s powers, and must suggest a solution.
(b) Review and Response by Board. Upon the Fencing Consortium’s receipt of a
written dispute it shall be placed on the agenda of the Board’s next scheduled
regular meeting for consideration. The Board shall respond in writing to all
properly submitted disputes within three months and shall provide each Member a
copy of its response.
(c) Mediation. If the Member with the dispute is not satisfied with the Board’s
response, it may file a written request with the Board for mediation. If the
Member and the Board are not able to mutually agree on a mediator, the Member
and the Board shall each select a mediator and the two mediators shall select a
third. Each party to the mediation shall be responsible for the cost of the mediator
it selected and shall share equally in the costs of the mediation and of the third
mediator.
(d) Binding Arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved in mediation, the aggrieved
Member and the Board may agree to submit to a binding arbitration process. The
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapter
572B following the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association, unless the Board and the Member agree to follow different rules.
The Members and the Board agree the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding
on the Fencing Consortium and its Members.
91
17
CR225-476-758705.v8
SECTION XI
WITHDRAWAL OF A MEMBER
11.1 Process. A Member may withdraw from the Fencing Consortium by providing written
notice to the Board of its intent to withdraw. To avoid a withdrawal from interrupting the
on-going payments for the costs of the Fencing, the effective date of the withdrawal will
depend on its timing with respect to the Board’s work to set the budget for the upcoming
year. If the Board receives the withdrawal notice prior to May 1st in a year, the effective
date of the withdrawal will be December 31st of the same year. If the Board receives the
notice after May 1st, the withdrawal will be effective December 31st of the following year.
11.2 Effect of Withdrawal. The withdrawing Member shall be responsible for paying its full
Member Assessment for the full year in which the withdrawal is effective. Recognizing
the Fencing Consortium is an ongoing concern, the Members agree the withdrawing
Member shall not receive any reimbursement of the amounts it has paid and is not
entitled to any share in the assets of the Fencing Consortium. Upon the effective date of
the withdrawal, the former Member shall no longer be considered a Member under this
Agreement.
SECTION XII
DISSOLUTION OF FENCING CONSORTIUM
12.1 Dissolution Process. The Fencing Consortium may only be dissolved by a joint
resolution approved by four-fifths of the then current Members or by a unanimous vote of
the entire Board on a dissolution resolution. Dissolution shall not be effective for at least
six months from the adoption the resolution unless an earlier dissolution date is approved
as part of the resolution. Prior to the effective date of the dissolution, the Board shall use
the Fencing Consortium’s assets to pay its outstanding obligations. If the assets on hand
are not sufficient to pay all outstanding obligations, the Board shall impose a Member
Assessment to collect sufficient funds to pay the outstanding amounts. The Board shall
divide the amount needing to be collected by a Member Assessment using the same
formula for other Member Assessments. The Fencing Consortium shall not be finally
dissolved until its outstanding obligations are paid in full.
12.2 Distribution of Assets and Property. Upon dissolution, the Board shall distribute any
remaining assets to the Members in proportion to the Member Assessment of each
Member in effect as of the date of dissolution. The Board shall have the power to
determine the best method for distributing the assets and to decide any disputes that may
arise among the Members concerning such distribution.
SECTION XIII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
13.1 Official Copy. This Agreement is being entered into through the adoption by each
Member and the Membership Resolution. The Board shall maintain the official copy of
this Agreement and maintain a list of the Original Members and the Additional Members.
92
18
CR225-476-758705.v8
The official copy shall constitute the Agreement, which shall be binding on all of the
Members.
13.2 Data Practices. The Fencing Consortium shall comply with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“Act”).
The Vendor shall be required to comply with the Act as provided in Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.05. The Vendor shall be required to notify the Board if it receives a data
request and to work with the Fencing Consortium to respond to it.
13.3 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given to the Fencing Consortium under
this Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be sent by first class mail to its current
address. Notice to each Member shall be given in writing by first class mail or email to
the Member’s chief of police or other designated contact person.
13.4 Waiver. The delay or failure of any party of this Agreement at any time to require
performance or compliance by any other party of any of its obligations under this
Agreement shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such
performance or compliance.
13.5 Governing Law. The respective rights, obligations and remedies of the parties under
this Agreement and the interpretation thereof shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Minnesota which pertain to agreements made and to be performed in the State of
Minnesota.
13.6 Headings and Captions. The headings and captions of these paragraphs and sections of
this Agreement are included for convenience or reference only and shall not constitute a
part hereof.
13.7 No Third-Party Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of the
Members and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this
Agreement, and no third party shall have any right in, under, or to this Agreement.
13.8 Good Faith. Each Member shall act in good faith. In exercising its rights and fulfilling
its obligations under this Agreement, each party acknowledges that this Agreement
contemplates cooperation between and among the parties.
13.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the recitals and all of the Membership
Resolutions, contains the entire understanding between the Members concerning the
subject matter hereof.
13.10 Amendments. Amendments to this Agreement may be proposed by the Board or by at
least 10% of the Members submitting a proposed amendment to the Board. The Board
shall forward proposed amendments to the Members in the form of an amendment
resolution. The Board will only forward amendments proposed by Members if it
determines the proposed amendments are lawful and not contrary to the primary purposes
of this Agreement. Members adopting the amendment resolution shall return a copy of
93
19
CR225-476-758705.v8
the executed resolution to the Board. A proposed amendment shall be considered
approved if the amendment resolution is adopted by at least 90% of the then current
Members.
13.11 Examination of Books. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, Subd. 5, the
books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Fencing
Consortium and the Vendor are subject to examination by the State. Members may
examine the financial records of the Fencing Consortium upon reasonable request.
13.12 Recitals and Exhibits Incorporated. The recitals contained herein, and the
Membership Resolutions, are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members have, by adoption and execution of the
Membership Resolution, entered into this Agreement as of the Effective Date or, if an Additional
Member, as of the date of acceptance by the Board of the Membership Resolution.
[A list of all Members is maintained by the Fencing Consortium.]
94
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 22-075
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE’S
PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR A FENCE
CONSORTIUM WITH SEVERAL HENNEPIN COUNTY
POLICE AGENCIES
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony met with several police agencies in Hennepin County to
discuss shared resources to secure a fencing/barrier system to protect critical city
infrastructure in the event of a civil unrest situation, AND
WHEREAS, that group did extensive research from industry experts and vendors, AND
WHEREAS, each agency evaluated their need for fencing and an individual cost was
determined.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saint Anthony
Village that The City Council agrees to approve the Joint Powers Agreement for the City of St.
Anthony to participate in the Fence Consortum with several Hennepin County Police agencies.
Adopted this 25th day of October, 2022.
______________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
City Clerk
Review for Administration: _____________________________________
Charlie Yunker, City Manager
95
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
96
CAPITAL FUNDS 2023-2039
97
CAPITAL FUNDS PURPOSE
Capture the big picture of equipment used
in the current delivery of City services
With the big picture established:
Equipment replacement timing proactively managed to
ensure availability of resources
Allows time for investigating replacement alternatives
Sharing of equipment
Leasing
New equipment options that provide greater functionality or
are less costly
98
ANNUAL UPDATE PROCESS
Finance staff provides
updated schedules to
department heads
Department heads
meet with their staff to
evaluate their
equipment’s condition
and future needs
Department heads
meet with the Finance
staff to develop the
updated information
into the proposed
replacement schedule
City Manager and
Finance Director
provide the proposed
Capital plans to the
City Council for review
and discussion
The City’s capital funds are updated annually, covering chain saws to fire engines
Manufacturer’s suggested end of useful life does not define replacement date; equipment condition is the determining factor.
99
BUILDINGS IMPROVEMENT FUND
SOURCES
Building
improvement levy
Community Center
transfer
Liquor store
reimbursements
Transfers
USES
HVAC
Roofs
Lighting
Security
Windows &
Doors
Tuck-pointing
100
BUILDINGS IMPROVEMENT FUND
2022-2024
City Hall has 5 HVAC roof top units being replaced
2020 City Hall offices
2021 PD & CS Cafeteria
2022 CS offices classrooms
2022 Multi-purpose/cafeteria
2023 Entry heaters
2024 Gym
City Hall HVAC controls
2021 PD & Multi-purpose
2022 CS & City Hall offices
City doors -2022
PW garage domestic hot water heater –2022
Fire Station roof -2023
Future
Annual levy increase $5,000
Buildings 13-26 years old
Roof replacements 2024+
Community Services lease renewal in 2028
Continue to benchmark power usage within the City Hall / Community Services building to guide conservation efforts
Review adequacy of building improvement levy in connection with results of "Sebesta Type" evaluation of City Buildings
101
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND
SOURCES
Capital equipment levy
Equipment sales,
grants & donations
Transfers
USES
Fleet
Squads & unmarked
Public Works trucks
Fire trucks & rescue vehicles
Heavy equipment
Specialty equipment
Technology
102
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND (POLICE)
2022
1 Squad and 1
Unmarked replaced
Retiring unmarked
vehicle will be used as
2nd Investigator vehicle
New records retention
management software
implemented
Office computers and
desk chairs
Future
Squad car replacement
based on mileage-estimated
life 3-4 years
2023 Fleet replacements
1 Squad vehicle
1 Unmarked vehicle
2023 Squad computers
2023-2024 Body cameras
and related equipment
2025 Squad and Facility
video cameras
103
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND (FIRE)
2022
Refurbishing of the 1991 Fire/Rescue vehicle expected to completed in late 2022 or early 2023
Purchased a Fire Engine chassis using American Rescue Act funds. 2023Buildout of truck
Cardiac equipment obtained via a grant
Future
2023 Fire’s self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacing equipment from 2001-04 era
2023 Fleet replacements
1 additional Fire rescue vehicle if SAFER grant is secured
Extrication Equipment replacing 1995 era equipment
104
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND (FIRE)
Fire Blanket Video
105
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND (PW/ADMIN./FINANCE)
2022
Replaced two 2006
Ford Mini-Dump /
Plow Trucks
Replaced 2013 Rahn
infield Liner groomer
Future
Annual CIP Levy increase
$30,000
Replacing 2007 Ford F-150
with Electric F-150
Replacing 2011 Bobcat
with Tool Cat 5600
Web-hosting
recodification of City Code
2024 Replacement of 1995
snowplow
106
PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND
SOURCES
Parkland dedication fees
Donations & grants
Park Improvement levy
Transfers
Interfund loans
USES
Athletic facilities &
playground structures
Park shelters
Splash pads
Trail construction
107
PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND
2023
Silver Point park playground equipment
Skateboard park surface restoration
Future
Annual Park
Improvement Levy
increase $5,000
Continuing assessment
of current Park amenities
and play structures to
prioritize needs
108
UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
SOURCES
Connection fees
Collection of inter-fund loans
Grants as available
Utility Fund transfer
(Beginning in 2025)
USES
Water infrastructure
& equipment
Sewer infrastructure
& equipment
Fiber infrastructure
& equipment
109
UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
2022
Water Tower restoration and painting
Foss Road Lift Station pump replacements
Water plant Scada upgrades, redundant server
Wells- various alarms added and security enhancements
Future
Water and Sewer operating fund transfers are projected to begin in 2025 to support future capital needs
Annual adjustments to water and sewer rates will ensure that operating transfers are available
A plant component’s assessment will inform the future capital expenditures and timing
110
STORMWATER FUND
SOURCES
Stormwater fees
Watershed grants
& cost sharing
USES
Permitting (MS4) &
agency reporting
Engineering studies
Stormwater pond
maintenance
Flood improvements
Water quality activities
Equipment
111
STORMWATER FUND
2022
The 2022 street project included two stormwater projects:
An alley stormwater repair
The 15-year maintenance needs for the Foss Rd ditch system
Requests for bids have been published for the Harding Pond project
The $272,000 estimated project anticipates restoring the flooding capacity to the pond’s original design
Future
The Storm Water fund currently has a sufficient fund balance to support the scheduled replacement throughout 2022-2038 time-frame
Stormwater fund transfers have been used to support the debt levy reduction program as needed in prior years
The stormwater rates have been adjusted over time to support maintenance costs and capital needs
Continuing Stormwater fee rate management will ensure sustainability
112
STREET IMPROVEMENT
& DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
SOURCES
Street improvement debt levy
Bond proceeds
Assessments
MSA allocation
Transfers
& project savings
USES
Street improvement debt
Street reconstruction
Utility reconstruction
Street lights
Sidewalks
Mill & overlays
Alleys
113
STREET IMPROVEMENT
2022 Mill and Overlays & Alleys 2022 Street and Utility Improvements
114
STREET IMPROVEMENT
2022-2037 Future Street Improvements Map
Street Improvement schedule
modified in 2022
Street and Utility improvements
going forward are scheduled with
an off year every third year
Scheduled off years:
•2023
•2026
•2029
•2032
•2035
115
PHASE II DEBT LEVY BENEFITS
Impact of modifying the pace of improvements
on debt levy management
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Benefits :
Overall Debt burden will be reduced at a faster
pace
The resulting debt levy decreases will allow for a
transition to Infrastructure Levy for long term levy
support of street improvements
Residential Street reconstructions anticipated
completed by 2037 vs 2032.
Infrastructure levy used to support street cost,
saving issuance and interest costs
Gain flexibility to adjust if other levy demands
occur
116
RESULTING DEBT LEVY PROGRAM
2023-2037
Debt Levy
remains at
$2,487,181 for
levy year 2023
117
THANK YOU Questions?
118
2022 Goals Chart
Mission & Vision
Be a progressive and welcoming Village
that is walkable, sustainable and safe
Saint Anthony is an innovative and vibrant community
that values our unique environment, providing a full
range of quality services, and is a thriving city in which
all people can live, work, learn and play
Core Values
S.E.R.V.I.C.E. — The St. Anthony Way
Supportive teamwork, work hard, yet have fun doing it, responsive, non sibi – not for self
Effective fair and reasonable, focused on adding value
Responsible high level of transparency
Visionary long term focus, see the big picture
Innovative think strategically, continuous improvement
Courteous noblesse oblige, set an example – “golden rule”, do the right thing, empathy
Exemplary integrity, want to be the best, motivated to work hard, curiosity, humility
Strategic Initiatives
Environmental Responsibility
Quality Infrastructure
Civic Engagement
Thriving neighborhoods
Communicate Transparently & Effectively
Safe & Secure Community
Fiscal & Organizational Strength
119
Action Steps
Environmental Responsibility
Continue phosphorus reduction initiative Salo pond system continues operation. Harding Pond and Central
Park Bio Swale rehabilitations scheduled
Continue a rain barrel & rain garden workshop Rain barrels delivered the week of April 11, 2022
Maintain highest GreenStep Cities status City achieved Steps 4 & 5 again for 2022
Promote Annual Water Challenge Promoted in April newsletter, City website and social channels
Continue solar garden participation & explore
expansion
WSB and City staff exploring options. No available additional
capacity identified to date
Continue Fix-it Clinics & TechDump Scheduled for October 8, 2022
Maintain Tree City certification Application due by end of 2022
Comply with MPCA MS4 Phase 2 Required community outreach in City newsletter continues
Explore single-hauler organized collection of
recycling, waste, organics
City released RFP for single-hauler proposals on July 1, 2022
Quality Infrastructure
Explore traffic safety on County roads 3th Ave from Silver Lake Rd to Highcrest scheduled to be
reconfigured from 4 to 3 lanes in 2023
Continue LED lighting upgrades city-wide Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) plant lighting upgraded in 2022
Review adequacy of public facilities PD working with PW to improve aesthetics and usage
Water Tower and Ground Storage Facility
Maintenance
Rehabilitation project completed in early September, 2022
Seek electric vehicle charging station grants Carbon Solutions Group proposal is on hold by their request. WSB
looking into other, similar options as a contingency
Complete 2022 street utility project Bid accepted and public hearings called for the project and
assessments at the 3/8/22 City Council Meeting
Explore options for connecting Mpls Park Board
Grand Rounds Missing Link
Explore green space vs. density in Silver Lake
Village
Explore green space options in southern SAV
Explore Dog Park PEC discussed options at their 9/12/22 meeting. Brought to City
Council 10/25/22 for consideration and future direction
Civic Engagement
Support Police Department Strategic Initiatives Leadership in Police Orgs class, Northwestern Police Institute
Staff and Command course for middle/top command staff
120
Continue Family Services Collaborative initiatives
support
Contract renewed for 2022 at the 2/8/22 City Council Meeting
Participate in Night to Unite Council & staff scheduled to participate on August 2, 2022
Continue youth engagement activities Spring Students in Government held 4/27/22
Attract diverse attendees to the Community
Academy
2022 Community Academy cancelled due to low interest. Will
hold again in early 2023
Encourage engagement with City commissions PEC member discussed parks usage & desires with residents,
engagement webpage added to show ways to get involved
Expand locations of Coffee w/t Council
Monitor flavored tobacco ordinances in
surrounding cities
In 2021 one neighbor restricted sale of flavored tobacco to
dedicated stores, effective 1/1/22
Plan future Sister Cities visit to Salo Topic was discussed during unexpected visit by Jouko Urmas to
Saint Anthony as part of economic trade visit to Minneapolis
Thriving Neighborhoods
Evaluate services/policies/procedures through
equitable lens
DEI priority added to waste hauler Request for Proposals
Ensure city code reflects sustainability initiatives Code language accommodating pollinator yards adopted by City
Council 5/24/22
Explore redevelopment of City-owned property Former bowling alley site sold to developer on May 25, 2022.
Grant for tank removal at former gas station awarded
Enhance Mental Health Awareness & Resources
for staff
Benefit providers resources sent to employees monthly.
HealthPartners presentation on resources scheduled for January,
2023. Check Up From the Neck Up continues
Improve welcoming of new residents to St.
Anthony Village
Staff met with Kiwanis on 7/14/22 to discuss enhancements to
welcome wagon initiative
Monitor trends related to single family zoning
district density/uses
Planning Commission discussed Single Family usage trends and
impacts of adjustments to setback and impervious requirements
Explore limits on rental licenses of single family
homes
Issue and possible approach discussed at 10/11/22 Work Session.
Will revisit when guidance from regional partner is available
Communicate Transparently & Effectively
Enhance sustainability tour interactive map
Enhance use of imagery & videos in city
communications
Explore options for Mass Emergency
Communications
Hennepin County Dispatch in the process of implementing
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) and IPAWS capabilities
Build upon existing engagement with community
orgs.
Annual Faith Groups get together held on May 24th
Implement enhancements to city newsletter Communications survey added as an insert to summer edition
121
Conduct community survey to help inform
decisions
Contract with Polco approved at the 2/22/22 City Council
Meeting. National Community Survey completed and results will
be reviewed by the Council at a November 3rd work session
Enhance official notification avenues for public
hearings
Push notification category for Public Hearings added in June,
2022
Safe & Secure Community
Continue operational audits of police officer body
cameras
Internal audits continue to be conducted monthly to ensure
compliance
Continue public safety community outreach
opportunities
PD, FD & PW participated in Scouts Pinewood Derby, Coffee with
a Cop sessions continue
Explore pedestrian & bike-friendly routes Preliminary routes to be reviewed by the Parks & Environmental
Commission, Planning Commission and City Council on 11/29/22
Participate in public safety joint mental health
initiatives
CISM team utilized after critical incident for SAV public safety
staff and outside agency staff
Foster connection to mental health services for
residents with existing resources
City Manager and Police Chief met with new Executive Director of
NYFS and discussed ways to increase the awareness of NYFS
services available to residents
Upgrade Police Department Records
Management System
Other participating agencies working through onboarding process
Explore Fire Department Medical Skillset
Expansion
Program with Hennepin County to begin in the Fall, and
paramedic pay differential budgeted for 2023.
Continue in regional engagement regarding
public safety
City representatives have attended regional meetings with
Hennepin and Ramsey County attorneys
Fiscal & Organizational Strength
Track grant outcomes & locate new opportunities 1st Quarter received: Hennepin County Tree and Toward zero
Deaths-$11,185.03, 2nd Quarter received: Fire training grant, DNR
wildlife equipment grant, Toward Zero Deaths-$19,165.20
Maintain cooperative ventures with other entities
& explore expansion
Enhancing financial services for the MWMO and implementing
improved financial reporting for NineNorth
Support professional development Department Heads and Council attended LMC conference June
2022. PW Superintendent supported relief efforts in Florida.
Review staffing, compensation, benefits and
organizational structure
Pay Equity report submitted and positive compliance report
received 4/5/22. HR Coordinator joined LOGIS Committee
Expand online city services on website Online permit portal launched 3/1/22
Develop exit plan for existing TIF districts Working with Ehlers to draft report for Council consideration
Establish sanitary sewer Inflow & Infiltration
reduction policy
Draft Memorandum of Understanding completed.
Plan 2023 budget and tax levy Proposed budget and tax levy presented at the 9/23/22 regular
City Council meeting
122
Date Type Staff Present
November 3 Work
Session Community Survey Results City Council
City Manager
November 8 Regular
8 PM
Planning Commission items from October
Authorizing polling places for 2023
1st Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater‐Public Hearing
Presentation on Water and Sewer Rates
Hennepin County Recycling Agreement
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
November 22 Work
Session Planning & Parks Commission Interviews
City Council
City Manager
November 22 Regular
Fire Prevention Poster Winners
2nd Reading and Adoption Water, Sewer, & Stormwater
I/I surcharge ordinance‐1st reading, Public Hearing?
City Council
City Manager
November 29 Work
Session Joint meeting with Planning & Parks Commission
City Council
City Manager
December 13 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
December 13 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 2023 City & HRA Budgets and Final Property Tax Levy ‐Public Hearing
2023 Fee Schedule
Quarterly Goals update
Final reading and adoption of water, sewer, & stormwater
Students in Government Presentation
Community survey results
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
City Engineer
December 27 Regular City Council
City Manager
January 10 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
January 10 Regular
Water Conservation Poster Winners
Planning Commission items from December
Housekeeping Resolutions
Resolution for the Street Improvement Bond Reimbursement
Quarterly Donations & Grants
City Council
City Manager
January 24 Regular
Public Works Snow Plowing Operations presentation
Outside Orgs‐Council
City Council
City Manager
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
2022
2023
123
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
February 14 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
February 14 Regular
Planning Commission items from January
Public Hearing‐2023 Budget Calendar and Process
2023 Planning Commission Work Plan‐ (motion only)
Administration Annual Report
NYFS Agreement
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
February 28 Regular
GreenCorp Member application‐resolution
Adoption of Strategic Plan
Liquor Annual Report
Liquor License Renewals
City Council
City Manager
Liquor Op Manager
Public Works Director
March 14 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
March 14 Regular
Planning Commission Items from February
Public Works Annual Report
2023 Parks and Environmental Commission Work Plan‐ (motion only)
City Council
City Manager
Public Works Director
March 28 Regular
Police Annual Report
Wyland Water Challenge
City Council
City Manager
Police Dept
April 11 Work
Session
Debt Levy/Updated Street Improvement Plan
Code Amendments
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
April 11 Regular
Planning Commission Items from March
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Fire Annual Report
Arbor Day Proclamation
Earth Day Proclamation
Quarterly Goals Update
Call for Sale of GO Bonds
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
April 25 Regular
2022 Street Project Public Hearing, Order Improvements, Adopt & Confirm Assessments,
Award Contract for Construction,
Finance Annual Report
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
May 9 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
124
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
May 9 Regular
Planning Commission items from April
Insurance Renewal
Tort Limits ‐ Consent
Approve sale of bonds
City Council
City Manager
City Engineer
May 23 Regular Villager of the Year and Business of the Year
City Council
City Manager
June 13 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
June 13 Regular
Planning Commission Items from May City Council
City Manager
July 11 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
July 11 Regular
Planning Commission items from June
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Quarterly Goals Update
Approval of 2023 debt levy‐public hearing
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
July 25 Work
Session Estimated Levy Scenarios
City Council
City Manager
July 25 Regular
Liquor Operations Mid Year Report
VillageFest Presentation
Night to Unite Presentation
Night to Unite Proclamation
City Council
City Manager
Liquor Op Mgr
Police Chief
August 7 Work
Session
Staff proposed 2024 Budget and Levy Presentation
Estimated Levy Scenarios
City Council
City Manager
August 7 Regular
Planning Commission items from July
Spirit of St. Anthony Award City Council
City Manager
August 22 Regular
2023 Budget & Levy Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
August 23 Regular
2023 Budget & Levy Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
September 12 Work
Session
City Council
City Manager
125
Date Type Staff Present
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
September 12 Regular
Planning Commission items from August
2024 Preliminary Operating Budget and Levy‐Public Hearing
Students in Leadership‐Consent
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
September 26 Regular Fire Prevention Presentation
City Council
City Manager
Fire Dept
October 10 Work
Session
2024 Long term capital budget plans City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
October 10 Regular
Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Waste Hauler Accounts‐Consent Agenda
Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts‐Consent Agenda
Authorize Contract RFP Garbage Haulers
Planning Commission items from September
City Council
City Manager
October 25 Regular
Quarterly Donations & Grants
Quarterly Goals Update
Approval of CIP
Fence Consortium
City Council
City Manager
Finance Director
126