The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-18-16-WSAGENDA ITEMS Red Fox Road/Lexington Avenue Intersection John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF GreenStep City Sara Grant, Recreation Coordinator MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF State Fair Parking (Temporary Parking Regulations) John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director Ryan Streff, City Planner MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF Interstate 694 Non -Motorized Crossing Study John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHEMNT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF Engineering Contracts John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF Toro Workman Purchase John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF Play Structure Discussion John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF Start By Believing Initiative Details And Dates Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Administrative Services MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF Metropolitan Council Reform Principles Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Administrative Services MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF Summer Hours Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Administrative Services MEMO.PDF Personnel Committee Update Mayor Grant and Councilmember Holden MEMO.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Fran Holmes Dave McClung Jonathan Wicklund City Council Work Session Agenda April 18, 2016 5:00 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER 1. 1.A. Documents: 1.B. Documents: 1.C. Documents: 1.D. Documents: 1.E. Documents: 1.F. Documents: 1.G. Documents: 1.H. Documents: 1.I. Documents: 1.J. Documents: 1.K. Documents: 2. AGENDA ITEMSRed Fox Road/Lexington Avenue Intersection John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDFGreenStep CitySara Grant, Recreation Coordinator MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDFState Fair Parking (Temporary Parking Regulations)John Anderson, Acting Public Works DirectorRyan Streff, City Planner MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDFInterstate 694 Non -Motorized Crossing StudyJohn Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHEMNT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDFEngineering ContractsJohn Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF Toro Workman Purchase John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF Play Structure Discussion John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF Start By Believing Initiative Details And Dates Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Administrative Services MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF Metropolitan Council Reform Principles Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Administrative Services MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF Summer Hours Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Administrative Services MEMO.PDF Personnel Committee Update Mayor Grant and Councilmember Holden MEMO.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungJonathan Wicklund City CouncilWork SessionAgendaApril 18, 20165:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.1.A.Documents:1.B.Documents:1.C.Documents:1.D.Documents:1.E.Documents: 1.F. Documents: 1.G. Documents: 1.H. Documents: 1.I. Documents: 1.J. Documents: 1.K. Documents: 2. Page 1 of 1 DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Red Fox Road / Lexington Avenue Intersection Background Joe Lux, Transportation Planner with Ramsey County, was at the December 21, 2015 and February 16, 2016 City Council work sessions to discuss Lexington Avenue and Red Fox intersection operations and possible improvements to deal with congestion. As agreed in February, Ramsey County is providing a mid-April update on the topic. Attached is a memo from Joe Lux outling Ramsey County’s observations, short-term and long-term plans related to this intersection. Attachments Attachment A – Ramsey County 4/11/16 Memo AGENDA ITEM – 1A MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM To: John Anderson, City of Arden Hills From: Joe Lux Date: April 11, 2016 Subject: Traffic Control Changes at Red Fox Road and Lexington Avenue We have observed traffic several times and at different times of day at the Red Fox Road/Lexington Avenue intersection, both before and during the current construction traffic control was installed. Congestion is, as the City Council has told us, significant, especially during the noon hour and afternoon peak times. The construction zone will be problematic until the work is completed, so our analysis will ignore the current situation and focus on the “normal” operations. There are many factors contributing to the delays, including the following:  The approximately 500 foot spacing between the south I-694 ramp and Red Fox Road is simply too short a distance to accommodate the weaving and merging vehicles. The addition of right-turn lanes at both the north and south ramps will alleviate this to some degree, but it will still be an issue.  Drivers are running red lights. We’ve seen drivers on all approaches simply ignore red lights and continue into the intersection, sometimes several seconds after the light has changed. This takes away from the overall operation of the intersection and often they end up blocking lanes because there is not enough room for them after they have forced their way into the intersection. Unfortunately, there is no way for efficient enforcement because there is simply no place for officers to stop drivers who do this.  A coordinated traffic signal timing plan is needed for the Lexington Avenue corridor. We have SEH, Inc. under contract to perform construction engineering duties on the current project and have discussed a contract addendum to include engineering services for the corridor between County Roads E and F. Significant improvements in performance could be gained through coordination. In the short term, we are open to installing signs prohibiting right turns at some times. We would consider electronic signs that prohibit westbound right turns when eastbound traffic has a green left-turn arrow. We would not want to install these signs until the temporary traffic control is removed, as the current conditions overload drivers with information and we feel things are already too confusing without adding another, unfamiliar, sign. In the long range development plan for the west side of the intersection, Roberts Development Company proposed closing four access points on Lexington Avenue and opening another, controlled by a traffic signal, opposite the south Target access. Roberts has expressed a willingness to pay their share of the road improvements necessary to accommodate this proposal. Ramsey County prepared a traffic study that confirmed that this proposal would work at the proposed location and would contribute to some operational improvements at the Red Fox Road intersection. Ramsey County has arranged two meetings among the principals to discuss this, with no consensus on moving forward. We have proposed a County-led project, funded by the benefitting properties through assessments and design and construction engineering costs borne by the County. Lacking agreement between the Cities of Arden Hills and Shoreview on whether to proceed with this plan, and after evaluating the pavement condition on Lexington Avenue, we propose to submit an application for federal Surface Transportation Program funding to reconstruct Lexington Avenue between County Roads E and I-694. If we are successful in obtaining STP funding, approximately 80% of the cost would be covered by the federal funding. Conceptually, the project would add right-turn lanes where needed and replace the bituminous pavement with concrete. The road base is structurally sound and would be preserved. This proposal would result in another construction season of delays, but the long-term traffic improvements would could offset that. In addition, replacing the pavement with concrete would reduce its tendency to rut and significantly reduce the need for repaving and other maintenance projects in the area. It would also be an opportunity to add other amenities, such as lighting, trail or sidewalk improvements, or landscaping. The next federal funding solicitation is coming up later this spring and is for 2020 and 2021 funding, though we could advance the project by a year or two, if we are successful. DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: Sara Grant, Parks and Recreation Coordinator SUBJECT: GreenStep City Action Requested Provide staff with direction on becoming a GreenStep City. Background During fall 2007, Minnesota's Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs) held regional listening sessions around the state to discuss community-based energy opportunities and the state's Next Generation Energy Act of 2007. The idea was raised of creating a sustainable cities program, free to cities, that would challenge, assist and recognize cities that were "green stars." This idea was taken up by the 2008 Legislature, which directed the MPCA, the Division of Energy Resources at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and CERTs to recommend actions cities could take on a voluntary basis. Those recommendations are contained in the report Minnesota GreenStep Cities. Representatives from dozens of cities, non-profit organizations, businesses and state government agencies provided the outline for what has been developed as the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program, which began in June 2010. In May 2012 the GreenStep Cities program received awards in the categories of Sustainable Communities and 2012 Partnership of the Year from the Minnesota organization Environmental Initiative. The awards honor partnerships, inspire other organizations to create similar projects, and encourage collaborative approaches to environmental problem solving. Over 340 attendees at the awards dinner voted among the 15 finalists nominated for the 2012 Partnership of the Year. AGENDA ITEM – 1B MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 Discussion The City Council requested staff look into the GreenStep and report back. The City of Arden Hills has already implemented a lot of initiatives that would be considered GreenStep City Best Practices. Staff is in support of Arden Hills becoming a GreenStep City as many of the components in the program do not require a large investment of staff time, and the program is voluntary so Arden Hills can participate in those areas that we choose. Attachments Attachment A: Minnesota Green Step Cities Attachment B: Organizing Steps to Becoming Recognized as a GreenStep City GreenStep Cities City Joined Current step (date achieved) Aitkin Mar 2016 STEP 1 Apple Valley Jun 2011 STEP 3 (6/23/15) Arlington Mar 2011 STEP 1 Austin Jul 2011 STEP 2 (6/10/12) Barnum Mar 2016 STEP 1 Belle Plaine Feb 2016 STEP 1 Bemidji Feb 2012 STEP 3 (6/23/15) Big Lake Mar 2016 STEP 1 Blackduck Oct 2010 STEP 1 Brainerd Apr 2013 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Brooklyn Center Jan 2015 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Burnsville Apr 2012 STEP 3 (6/20/13) Chisholm Feb 2015 STEP 1 Cologne Jul 2015 STEP 1 Columbia Heights Feb 2013 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Coon Rapids Mar 2014 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Cottage Grove Dec 2010 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Crookston Feb 2015 STEP 1 Crystal Nov 2014 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Delano Jun 2011 STEP 1 Duluth May 2014 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Eagan Aug 2010 STEP 3 (6/10/12) Eden Prairie Jun 2011 STEP 3 (6/20/14) Edina Jan 2011 STEP 3 (6/10/12) Elk River Oct 2010 STEP 3 (6/20/13) Elko New Market Nov 2013 STEP 1 Ely Jan 2014 STEP 1 Falcon Heights Jan 2011 STEP 3 (6/10/12) Faribault Mar 2016 STEP 1 Farmington May 2011 STEP 2 (6/10/12) Fergus Falls Sep 2015 STEP 1 Forest Lake Jun 2014 STEP 1 Fridley Aug 2014 STEP 1 Gilbert Jan 2015 STEP 1 Grand Marais Jan 2014 STEP 1 Grand Rapids May 2012 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Hermantown Mar 2015 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Hewitt Mar 2016 STEP 1 Hoffman Dec 2010 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Hopkins Nov 2010 STEP 3 (6/20/13) Hutchinson Apr 2015 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Inver Grove Heights Mar 2016 STEP 1 Isanti Aug 2015 STEP 1 Jordan Oct 2015 STEP 1 Kasson Feb 2011 STEP 2 (6/20/14) La Crescent Oct 2015 STEP 1 La Prairie Sep 2010 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Lake Crystal Apr 2013 STEP 2 (6/20/14) Lake Elmo May 2012 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Lauderdale Mar 2015 STEP 1 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Aug 2014 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Lexington Aug 2015 STEP 1 Luverne Jun 2011 STEP 1 Mahtomedi Oct 2010 STEP 3 (6/20/14) Mankato Aug 2010 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Maple Grove Dec 2012 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Maplewood Dec 2010 STEP 3 (6/20/13) Marine on Saint Croix Dec 2014 STEP 1 Marshall Mar 2012 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Mayer Oct 2015 STEP 1 Milan Jun 2011 STEP 1 Minnetonka Dec 2013 STEP 2 (6/20/14) Mounds View Feb 2016 STEP 1 Mountain Iron May 2012 STEP 1 New Brighton Feb 2016 STEP 1 New Hope Jan 2015 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Newport Apr 2012 STEP 3 (6/20/13) Nisswa Oct 2012 STEP 1 North Saint Paul Jul 2012 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Northfield Jun 2010 STEP 3 (6/23/15) Oakdale Mar 2011 STEP 3 (6/23/15) Pierz Sep 2014 STEP 1 Pine City Mar 2014 STEP 1 Pine River May 2010 STEP 2 (6/20/14) Red Lake Band of Chippewa Jun 2015 STEP 1 Red Wing Feb 2011 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Richfield Jan 2012 STEP 1 Rochester Dec 2010 STEP 3 (6/20/13) Rogers Dec 2011 STEP 3 (6/20/14) Rosemount Dec 2011 STEP 2 (6/10/12) Roseville Jul 2014 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Royalton Sep 2010 STEP 2 (6/10/12) Saint Anthony Feb 2011 STEP 3 (6/10/12) Saint Cloud Jun 2011 STEP 2 (6/13/11) Saint Louis Park Jun 2012 STEP 1 Saint Paul Jun 2014 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Saint Paul Park Feb 2013 STEP 1 Sartell Jan 2014 STEP 1 Sauk Rapids Jul 2012 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Scandia May 2014 STEP 1 Sherburn Sep 2014 STEP 1 Shoreview Jan 2013 STEP 3 (6/20/14) Shorewood Jun 2011 STEP 1 Silver Bay Jan 2014 STEP 2 (6/20/14) Stacy Feb 2016 STEP 1 Two Harbors Mar 2015 STEP 2 (6/23/15) Victoria Jan 2012 STEP 3 (6/23/15) Warren Sep 2011 STEP 2 (6/20/14) White Bear Lake Dec 2011 STEP 3 (6/20/14) Willmar Mar 2012 STEP 2 (6/20/13) Winthrop Nov 2015 STEP 1 Woodbury Jan 2013 STEP 3 (6/20/13) OrganizingstepstobecomingrecognizedasaGreenStepCity  OfMinnesota’s855cities,approximately500areunder1,000inpopulation,83%areunder5,000in population,and35haveapopulationover25,000.Withsuchadiversityofcities,noonesetofprocess stepswillfitallcitiesinorganizingworktobecomeaGreenStepCity.Dependingonyourcity,work maystartmostlyatthecitystaff,citycouncilorcitizencommissionlevelandfitwellintoexistingplans andefforts,movinglatertoincorporateandleverageworkeffortsbycivicorganizations.Orthe impetusforimplementingGreenStepbestpracticesmaystartwithacivicgroupandbemostlydoneby communitymembersandcommunityorganizations,withthecitycouncilinasupportiveandactive roleasneeded.  Adaptthisguideasbestfitsyourcityandtheindividualswhoareworkingtomakeyourcitya GreenStepCity.   1. Buildcommunityknowledgeandinterest. o Anyonecanstartthis:acitystaffperson,aninterestedcitizen,acitycommissionortaskforce member,amayor,citycouncilmember,businessassociationmember,civicassociationmember, environmentalorpublichealthgroup,renewableenergyadvocate,etc. o Determineintowhichcategoryyourcityfits.Citieswithgreatercapacityformakingcivic improvementsareableandchallengedtoimplementmorebestpracticesand"harder"actions. Answer11simplequestionstodeterminewhetheryourcityisincategoryA,BorC. o BecomefamiliarwithGreenStepbestpracticesandwhichofthemothercitiesinMinnesotahave implemented.Determineyourcitycategorysoyouknowtheminimumnumberofbestpractices yourcitymusthaveimplementedtoberecognizedasaGreenStepCity,StepTwoandStepThree. o Talkwithkeypeopleandorganizationsinyourcity,discussatexistingmeetings,andconvenespecial meetingstodiscussasappropriate. o Invite,asneeded,aGreenStepprogramrepresentativetocomevisityourcityandtalkabout GreenStep.ContacttheMPCA’sGreenStepCitiesprogramcoordinatortofindoutwhomightbe availabletovisityourcitizen’sgroup,orcitystaff,citycommission,orcitycouncil. o Inventorycompleted,plannedanddesiredbestpractices.Somecitiesfinditimportanttoprepare thisinventory,ataverysimplesummaryleveloratadetailedlevel,beforeseekingacitycouncil resolution.Considerusingastudentinternorcommunityvolunteertodothis,or,foramore detailedinventory,contacttheMPCA’sGreenStepCitiesprogramcoordinatortoseeifaRETAP membercanhelpyou. o Discusswithanofficialcitybody.Thiscouldbeacitycouncil,acouncilcommittee,acitycommission ortaskforce,orsomeothergroupchargedbycitygovernmenttoworkoncivicimprovement.  2. ApproveacitycouncilresolutiontoworktowardGreenStepCitiesrecognition. o Usethesampleresolutionandmodifyitasneededindiscussionwithcitycouncilmembersorina citycouncilcommitteemeeting. o Introducearesolutiontothecitycouncil.Dependingonthepracticeinyourcity,moreorlessdetail willhavetobespelledoutintheproposedresolution. o Specifyintheresolution–ordirectcitystafftodeterminelater–(1)aGreenStepcoordinatorfor yourcity(thecoordinatorcouldbeanexistingcitystaffpersonorentity,ortaskforce,oran appointedcommunitymember),and(2)ashortlistofwhichGreenStepbestpracticesthecity initiallyplanstoimplement(tohelptheGreenStepprogrambetterunderstandcityinterests). o E‐mailyourresolution/contactinformation.ThiswillallowtheMPCAtosetupawebaccountonthe GreenStepCitieswebsiteforyourcity.Ifyourresolutionnamesacityentity,pleaseincludea contactperson’sname,phone,e‐mailandpostaladdress,whichwillappearonthepublicwebsite.   Congratulations!YouarenowrecognizedasaStepOneGreenStepCity!UseStepOnerecognition artwork/materialslocatedonyourcitylog‐inpagetoletothersknowofyouraccomplishment.   3. PostinitialinformationontheGreenStepCitieswebsite. o Entersimpleinformation:citypopulation,approximatenumberofcitystaff,citycategory,cityweb siteaddress,namesofanyparticipatingtownship(s)/schooldistrict(s),andcontactinformationfor onepersonwhowillserveasyourcity’sGreenStepcontact. o Providebriefdetailonbestpracticespreviouslyimplemented.Forexample,ifyoucheckoffthe actionPromotebiking,walkingandtransitundertheMobilityOptionsbestpractice,tellus:  Howmany,forexample,bikeracksthecity/thecityanditspartnersinstalled  Awebaddressonyourcitywebsite(ifany)thattalksaboutyourefforts(oruploada planningdocumentyoumayhaveused,suchasanareabikeplan)  Anysuccessmeasures(suchas:bikepathuseincreased20%during2005)  Anykeypartner(s)youmayhaveworkedwith(forexample,alocalbikerackcompany)  Thenameande‐mailofthepersonmostknowledgeableaboutthisaccomplishmentsothat othercitiesseekingtoreplicateyoursuccesscanlearnfromit. Somecitiesmayfinditeasier/cheapertouseastudentinterntogatherandpostthisinformation. ContacttheMPCA’sGreenStepCitiesprogramcoordinatortoseeifaRETAPmembercanhelpyou withtheinventoryandposting.  4. Getorganizedtobeginworkonimplementingbestpractices. o Asneeded,educatecitystaffandofficialsaboutsustainability.Sustainabilitymaynotbetheterm usedbyyourcity,butcurrentactionsthecitymaybetakingtoincreasecityresiliencytofinancial pressures,toincreaselivabilityandtopreventfutureenvironmentalcostscertainlyfallunderthe sustainabilityfocusofGreenStepCitiesandshouldbeunderstoodbyelectedandappointedofficials andstaff. o Conveneasmallworkinggroup.TheGreenStepcontact/coordinatorforthecityshouldcalltogether keypeoplewithincitygovernment(andoutsideofcitygovernmentasappropriateatthisstage)to makedecisionssuchasthefollowing.Thisgroupmightbeanexistingornewcitystaffgreenteamor anexistingornewcitizencommissionortaskforce:  Howtoworkwithexistingcity/civicgroupsandinitiativestoimplementbestpractices  WhoshouldbeonaGreenStepsteeringcommittee(whichcouldbeanexistinggroup),what thiscommitteeneedstodo(e.g.,reviewprogressonimplementingbestpractices),andhow oftenitneedstomeet  HowoftentheGreenStepsteeringcommitteeshouldreportbackwhattothecitycouncil o Specifyimplementationaction(s)andafewleadpeople.AGreenStepsteeringcommittee–which couldbetheinitialsmallworkinggrouporacitycommission–shouldtaketheshortlistofbest practicesthecityidentifiedinitsresolutionforimplementation,andidentify:  Whichspecificaction(s)undereachbestpracticewillbeinvestigated/workedon  Whichpeople‐“bestpracticeleads”‐shouldprepareasimpleworkplanforhowto implementtheaction(s) o Prepareasimpleworkplanforimplementingselectedbestpractice.Havebestpracticeleads– thesecouldbenon‐paidcommunitymembers,ormembersofacityenvironmentalcommission‐ draftasimpleworkplan.Theworkplanshouldspecifyexactly(1)whowoulddo(2)whatand(3) whenusing(4)whattypesofresources(money,volunteers,countyhelp,utilityfunds,etc.).Bealert tohowproposingslightchangesinwhatacityisalreadyplanningtodocanaccomplishabest practiceaction.GreenStepsismostlyaboutdoingthingssmarterandspendingmoneythatreturns multiplebenefits,notaboutspendingmoremoneyorfindinggrantmoney.Thefollowingshould makepreparingtheworkplaneasier:  ReviewimplementationtoolsontheGreenStepwebsiteforeachselectedbestpractice action,whichoftenincludecasestudies,torefinehowyouwillimplementthebestpractice actioninyourcity  Talkwithcitystaff/officials  Talkwithothersfromthecommunity  Talkwithtrustedresourceorganizations,includingconsultantsandutilities  ContacttheMNGreenStepCitiesbestpracticeadvisorfortherelevantbestpracticeas needed  ReadontheGreenStepwebsitehowothercitieshaveimplementedaselectedbestpractice action,andcontactthepeoplelistedtheretolearnmoreinformation o PresentthebestpracticeplanstoyourGreenStepsteeringcommitteeandtoacitybodyortothe citycouncilasappropriate.  5. Beginworkingtoimplementbestpractices. o Keepeveryonemovingandcelebratesuccess.AtperiodicmeetingsofyourGreenStepsteering committee,havebestpracticeleadsreportonaccomplishments,barriers,andnextsteps.Work togethertoovercomebarriers,changeplansasneeded,andfindwaystoaccomplishmultiple actionsthroughacommonstrategy. o Clarify,asneeded,whatconstitutescompletinganactionwiththeMPCAGreenStepprogram coordinator.Forexample,anadministrativedirectiveisprobablysubstantiallyequivalenttoacity council‐adoptedpolicy,butfeelfreetomakeaphonecalltoclarifyanissuesuchasthis. o BrieflydescribecompletedbestpracticeactionsontheGreenStepwebsiteasyoudidinstep3 abovewhenfirstenteringinformationontotheGreenStepCitieswebsite.   Congratulations!Whenyouhaveimplementedany4,6or8bestpractices(dependingonyourcity category)youarenowrecognizedasaStepTwoGreenStepCity!   6. Keeponworkingandberecognizedforhighersteps. o Implementingaparticularbestpracticeactionmaytakemonthsoryears.TheGreenStepCities programrequirementshavebeensetwiththeexpectationthatanycitycanimplement8,12or16 bestpractices(dependingoncitycategory)andbecomeaStepThreeGreenStepCitywithinthree years.Butimplementingtherequiredbestpracticesandtheminimumnumberofoptionalbest practicesmighttakesomecitieslongerorshorterthanthreeyears,dependingonthedifferent assetsandcapabilitiesofeachcity.Programrequirementswillbereviewedandadjustedcarefully eachyeartokeeptheimplementationactionsforbestpracticeschallengingyetdoable. o Bealerttorareopportunities.Projectslikestreetrepaving,wastewaterplantbreakdowns,or receivingagrantforhousingloanseachaffordacitythechancetocompletemultiplebestpractice actionsatonce.Bereadywithplansformakingthemostoftheseopportunities. o Checkbackwiththecitycouncilasneeded.Ongoingorplannedbestpracticeimplementationmay fitinwithnewcityeffortsandcanbeshapedindiscussionwiththecouncil. o ReportyearlytocommunitymembersonGreenStepaccomplishments.Thisisarequiredactionfor allcitiesunderBestPractice#24.Usevariousmedia,samplereportingformsonyourcity’slog‐in page,andexistingcommunicationvehiclesandvenues. o Asyourworkproceeds,giveusfeedbackontheprogram.Letusknowhowwecanmakethe programmaterialsaideyoubetterinimplementingactions.   Congratulations!Whenyouhaveimplemented8,12or16bestpractices(dependingonyourcity category,andincludingafewrequiredbestpractices)youarenowrecognizedasaStepThree GreenStepCity!   7. GreenStepCitiesStepFour. o Programrequirementswillbedevelopedduring2012,aswelearnfromcitiesduring2010and2011, tochallengerecognizedGreenStepCitiestoimplementmoreactionsandberecognizedforthese accomplishments.WethinkGreenStepbestpracticeswillresultinmultiplebenefitsforyourcityand thatyou’llwanttocontinuouslyworkonbestpracticesthatmakeyourcitymoresustainable. AGENDA ITEM – 1C Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: State Fair Parking (Temporary Parking Regulations) Requested Action Discuss and provide feedback on State Fair parking restrictions. Background During the City Council meeting on June 29, 2015, the Council approved Ordinance 2015-005 in Planning Case 15-011 for an amendment to Chapter 8 – Traffic and Motor Vehicles, Section 800.03 of the City Code, in order to include temporary parking restrictions. The amendment permitted the City Administrator or designee to restrict parking on City streets for up to thirty (30) days. The approved temporary parking restrictions include, but are not limited to, no parking, 2 hour parking, and parking on one side of the street. The amendment to the Code assists the City’s Public Works Department and the County Sheriff when addressing parking concerns identified in residential areas for special events such as the State Fair. Discussion At the direction of the city administrator public works posted the state fair parking restrictions in 2015 as shown on Attachment 2. The signs were placed in two neighborhoods. The first neighborhood was Harriet Avenue and Benton Way. No parking was posted at both intersections of Harriet Avenue and Benton Way. The second neighborhood that had temporary no parking signs posted in 2015 was the Beckman Avenue / Jerold Avenue area. In this area no parking was posted along the north side of Beckman Avenue from Lake Johanna Boulevard to New Brighton Road. No parking was also posted at the intersections where Jerrold Avenue, Edgewater Avenue and Glen Paul Avenue intersect with Prior Avenue. Also the east end of AGENDA ITEM – 1C Page 2 of 2 Jerrold Avenue, Edgewater Avenue and Glen Paul Avenue were marked with no parking where they intersect with New Brighton Road. The north side of Edgewater Avenue from New Brighton Road to the west end was posted no parking. The south side of Jerrold Avenue from New Brighton Road to Prior Avenue was also posted no parking. Attachments A. Temporary Parking Restrictions (Chapter 8 - Section 800.03 - Subd. 12) B. Exhibit – 2015 state fair parking restrictions City of Arden Hills Chapter 8 - Traffic and Motor Vehicles 8- 1 Adopted December 17, 2001 Chapter 8 – Traffic and Motor Vehicles Section 800 - Traffic and Parking Regulations * 800.01 Highway Traffic Regulation Act Adopted. M.S. Ch. 169, as amended from time to time, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this code as if set out here in full. 800.02 Penalty. Any violation of M.S. Ch. 169, commonly referred to as the Highway Traffic Regulation Act, which occurs within the limits of the City shall be a violation of this chapter. Any person violating any provision thereof shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment not to exceed the maximum penalty authorized by state law. 800.03 Parking Regulations. (revised 2/23/12) Subd. 1 Winter Parking Regulations. Except in compliance with the directions of a law enforcement officer or in compliance with regulatory parking signs, no vehicle shall be parked on the improved portion of any street or highway in the City immediately after the accumulation of two or more inches of snow and until snow removal or plowing has been completed. Subd. 2 Overnight Parking. No vehicle shall be parked on any street between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Subd. 3 Prohibited Parking Areas. In all residential districts, parking shall be prohibited on any area of private property except on designated driveways or parking lots. Subd. 4 Parking in Driveways. In all residential districts, there shall be no more than four vehicles parked on a driveway. Subd. 5 Parking on Public Streets. Parking on public streets shall not exceed six hours. Subd. 6 Vehicles over 12,000 Pounds. No motor vehicle or trailer with a rated gross weight exceeding 12,000 pounds shall be parked or stored in a residential zone except when loading, unloading or rendering a service. Subd. 7 Parking on Boulevard Prohibited. No motor vehicle shall park upon the boulevard of any public street. Subd. 8 Setback from Intersections. Parking shall be set back from street intersections as follows: A. Twenty (20) feet from crosswalk of any uncontrolled intersection; B. Thirty (30) feet from crosswalk of any controlled intersection; and C. Twenty (20) feet from any intersection without a marked crosswalk. *State law references - Abandoned motor vehicles, M.S. Ch. 168B; highway traffic regulations, M.S. Ch. 169 City of Arden Hills Chapter 8 - Traffic and Motor Vehicles 8- 2 Adopted December 17, 2001 Subd. 9 Administrative Procedures. The city administrator shall adopt, from time to time, procedures to provide for the safe and consistent application of the parking regulations. The city administrator may grant variances from the application of parking regulations provided that the variances can be allowed without creating a safety hazard. Administrative variances shall be in writing and shall state the specific time limits during which the variation will be allowed to occur. Subd. 10 Impoundment. A. Any vehicle parked in violation of this subsection is hereby declared to be a traffic safety hazard and nuisance, and the same may be summarily abated by removing and towing away such vehicle by or under the direction or at the request of any member of the City's designated law enforcement provider. Such vehicle shall be stored at such place within or without the City as may be directed by the City's designated law enforcement provider; and within fourteen (14) days of such impounding, the City’s designated law enforcement provider shall mail written notice thereof to the owner at his or her last known address according to the vehicle registration records of the state. Before the owner or his or her agent shall be permitted to remove the vehicle from the custody of the City's designated law enforcement provider, he or she shall furnish satisfactory evidence of identity and ownership of the vehicle, pay all reasonable charges for the towing and storage of the vehicle and sign a written receipt for the vehicle. B. As an alternative to the foregoing, the officer may require the owner of an illegally parked vehicle to remove said vehicle from the subject street or highway during the times limited above. Subd. 11 Prima Facie Evidence of Violation. The operation, use or parking of a motor vehicle in violation of this subsection shall be prima facie evidence that the motor vehicle was at the time of the violation controlled, operated and used by the owner thereof. Subd. 12 Temporary Parking Restrictions. The City Administrator or designee may post temporary parking restrictions on City streets for up to thirty (30) days in duration. Temporary parking restrictions may include, but are not limited to, no parking, 2 hour parking, and parking on one side of the street. STOWE AVE GLEN PAU L AVE EDGEWATER AVE JERROLD AVE P R I O R A V E N KATIE LN BECKMAN AVEKATIE CT S A N DEEN R D L A K E J O H A N N A B L V D K A T I E L N COU N TY RO AD D W GLEN PAUL AVE C L E V E L A N D A V E N N E W B R I G H T O N R DKATIE L N Prepared by:City of Arden Hills4/14/16 Data S ources an d Co ntacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base M ap (4/30/1 2)* City of Ard en Hills DISCLAIM ER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This m ap is a com pilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area show n, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map are error free, and the C ity does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact 651-792-7044. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indem nify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by U ser, its em ployees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Beckman / Jerrold Area µ 0 370 740185 Feet Legend Temporary No Parking State Fair TILLER LN HARRIET AVE P I N E T R E E D R B E N T O N W A Y HUNTERS CT D E L L W O O D A V E W A L D E N P L B E N T O N W A Y Prepared by:City of Arden Hills4/14/16 Data S ources an d Co ntacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base M ap (4/30/1 2)* City of Ard en Hills DISCLAIM ER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This m ap is a com pilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area show n, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map are error free, and the C ity does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact 651-792-7044. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indem nify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by U ser, its em ployees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Harriet / Benton Way Area µ 0 280 560140 Feet Legend Temporary No Parking State Fair DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Susan Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Interstate 694 Non-Motorized Crossing Study Requested Action Provide Staff with feedback on the City Council’s desired course of action. Background As MnDOT was preparing plans to reconstruct the I-694 and TH 51 interchange, the City of Arden Hills asked if a trail could be extended along the Hamline Avenue / TH 51 corridor. This proved to be not feasible for a number of reasons but lead to the larger question of where were logical locations for non-motorized crossings along the I-694 corridor in Arden Hills. MnDOT began a study to answer this question. Shortly after commencing the study, other neighboring communities were asking the same question which lead to expanding the study to include a larger area bounded by Silver Lake Road to the west and TH 120 to the east. Discussion The Study has been completed and representatives from MnDOT presented the report to the City Council at the March 21st City Council Worksession. The Council requested that staff look back at the details of the original Municipal consent agreement with MnDOT. Attached are documents related to the municipal consent. Attachments Attachment A: May5, 2011 Arden Hills Letter Attachment B: May 5, 2011 MnDOT letter Attachment C: June 2, 2011 Municipal Consent AGENDA ITEM – 1D MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Susan Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Engineering Contracts Requested Action Provide Staff with feedback on the City Council’s a desired course of action. Background In 2007 the City went through a process to identify engineering consultants to be placed in a pool to draw from for specific areas of expertise. This process was led by D eb Bloom and Kris Giga who were the City’s engineering staff at the time. Discussion As you know since that time the City has seen the departure of Roseville staff supplying engineering services to Arden Hills and the hiring of City staff to fill the Assistant City Engineer position and Public Works director position. Public works approach to engineering projects since the departure of Roseville staff has been to accomplish as much with city staff as time allows and supplement that with consultants as necessary. The City Council has voiced some concern with the way in which engineering consulting services are selected and with the need to initiate engineering projects in the near future, staff would like feedback from the City Council on how they wish to proceed with selection of engineering consultants in the future. Attachments Attachment A: 2007 approval of consultant pool AGENDA ITEM – 1E MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 2 DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Susan Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Toro Workman Purchase Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Sources: $26,000 $23,933.27 Equipment/Building Replacement Fund Requested Action Provide Staff with feedback related to the purchase of this piece of equipment. Discussion Public Works currently has 3 Toro Workman in the equipment fleet. These three units are used for three distinct tasks. One of these units is used for painting lines on athletic fields and is outfitted with a paint tank, pump and spray boom. The second is used for ball field maintenance and is equipped with a drag. The third Workman is used for garden maintenance and a backup for the ball field drag unit should there be a breakdown. Since the field drag unit and gardening unit are used daily in the summer, reliability is a key factor for public works with this equipment. The 2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes an item for the replacement of the 1997 Toro Workman (Unit 410). A copy of the detailed sheet from the CIP is attached. The Equipment Replacement Guidelines recommend replacement of these units every 13 to 15 years, this unit is 19 years old. The 2016 CIP has an estimated budget for the purchase of the new Toro Workman of $28,000 and a trade in value of $2,000 for a net budget of $26,000 for this purchase. The total purchase price of this unit is $23,933.27, well below the estimated budget for this unit. The pricing provided in this quote is as listed in GSA government pricing. AGENDA ITEM – 1F MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 The Table below shows the model year, hours, expected replacement year, and programmed replacement year of the three Workmen we have in our fleet. Equip No. Equipment Description Year Hours Expected Replacement Year Estimated Life 2016 CIP programmed replacement year 85410 Workman W/Ball field Drag 1997 1589 2012 13-15 2016 85411 Workman W/Field Paint Tank 2001 1741 2016 13-15 n/a 85445 Workman 2012 445 2027 13-15 n/a Finally, the 1997 Toro Workman (Unit 410) that this new unit is replacing would be sent to auction after we take delivery of the new workman. Attachments Attachment A: Equipment CIP Attachment B: Copy of the quote MTI Distributing Attachment C: Photos of 1997 Toro Workman (unit 410) MTI Distributing Equipment Proposal March 8th, 2016 Joe Mooney City of Arden Hills Expiration Date 30 days 1450 W. Hwy 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Qty Model Number Description GSA Pricing Price Extension 1 07390 Workman HDX Auto $21,352.27 $21,352.27 1 127-8750 HOOD ASM-CVT INTAKE 1 117-4825 ROPS SIGNAL KIT-HD WORKMAN 1 TS GL 650 K-7cRahn Infield Groomer w/both Scarifier and Spring Tine $2,581.00 $2,581.00 Quote is valid for 30 days New Toro commercial equipment comes with a two-year manufacturer warranty Equipment delivery at no additional charge Thank you for the opportunity to submit this quote. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate in contacting us. Bob Frank, SCPS Mandi Prinsen Outside Sales Representative Inside Sales Representative 612-877-0837 763-592-5641 MTI Distributing, Inc. • 4830 Azelia Avenue N. #100 • Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 GSA Pricing 1997 Toro Workman (Unit 410) Page 1 of 2 DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Playground Structure Replacement Requested Action Provide Staff with feedback on playground structure replacement programmed in the Capital Improvement plan (CIP). Background The City has established a playground structure replacement policy in the Parks Maintenance plan Approved November 15, 2010. (Attachment A) This plan projects the need for structure replacement every 20 years. The city has a number of structures that are approaching the end of their life on this schedule. We have programmed those playground structures for replacem ent in the CIP (Attachment B). Discussion Before staff begins acting on those plans we wanted to check in the City Council and see if it is the Council’s desire to proceed on the replacement programmed for 2016 at Perry Park. Pictures of the existing playground structure are attached (Attachment B). This particular structure is in need of updates from a staff perspective. The updates include elimination of barriers such as the wood retaining walls. Elimination of the walls is important from a number of perspectives, access, maintenance and safety to name a few. There is a large sand play area we would recommend removing. The playstructure has a mulch surface under the structure; with a mulch base it is important to install draintile and sand below to provide proper drainage. The Playground structure itself could be reduced in size. The structure appearance is showing signs of its age with fading powder coating, and rusting steel where the powder coating has cracked. AGENDA ITEM – 1G MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 Attachments Attachment A: Park Maintenance Plan Attachment B: Capital Improvement Plan – Playground Structure Replacement Attachment C: Perry Park Playground Structure Photos 27 Playground Equipment and Mulch Replacement Schedule ARDEN HILLS PARKS & RECREATION PLAY STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT DATES Replacement cycle is based on the following criteria: 1) 20 year pattern 2) Wear & tear; vandalism 3) Changes in code (i.e. safety, ADA) Playground Mulching Schedule Park Manufacturer Last Replacement Date Future Replacement Date Arden Manor Miracle Recreation 1999 2019 Arden Oaks Miracle Recreation 1999 2019 Cummings Miracle Recreation 1998 2018 Freeway Miracle Recreation 1998 2018 Floral Miracle Recreation 2001 2021 Hazelnut Landscape Structures 1997 2017 Ingerson Miracle Recreation 2000 2020 Charles Perry Landscape Structures 1996 2016 Royal Hills Miracle Recreation 2002 2022 Sampson Miracle Recreation 2001 2021 Valentine Miracle Recreation 1990 2010 Park Last Mulch Replacement Next Scheduled Replacement Arden Manor July, 2010 2013 Arden Oaks June, 2009 2012 Charles Perry July, 2008 2011 Cummings June, 2009 2011 Floral June, 2009 2012 Freeway May, 2010 2013 Hazelnut July, 2010 2012 Ingerson June, 2009 2012 Royal Hills May, 2010 2013 Sampson June, 2009 2012 Valentine July, 2008 2011 with playground replacement AGENDA ITEM – 1H MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Admin Services SUBJECT: Ramsey County Start by Believing Initiative Background All Council members received an email from Ramsey County Commissioner Jim McDonough about the County’s Start by Believing Initiative. The email encouraged all cities in Ramsey County to pass a resolution of support at the first City Council meeting after the April 12, 2016. I have attached all the materials and the Ramsey County resolution for your information. Discussion Staff would like direction from the Council on whether or not they would like to proceed and adopt a resolution in support of this initiative. Attachments Attachment A: Ramsey County Board Item Memo Attachment B: Ramsey County Resolution Attachment C: Initiative Summary and Event Plan Attachment D: Start by Believing Invite 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION RAMSEY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Requesting Departments: Public Health and the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office Committee: Board of Commissioners Meeting Date: 4/12/2016 SUBJECT: Resolution in support of the “Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community” Initiative Presentation of a resolution about a new joint initiative by Saint Paul – Ramsey County Public Health and the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office in support of the “Start by Believing” a national public awareness campaign designed to improve the response to sexual violence survivors. Public Health Director Rina McManus and County Attorney John Choi will be present to discuss the local campaign, “Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community” and plans for a community presentation and dialogue on April 13. The goal of the initiative is to partner with other county departments, local law enforcement, community groups and residents to provide education, training and outreach to reduce the disbelief, shame or blame sexual violence survivors encounter. Attachment: Start by Believing Resolution Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community Whereas, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men in the United States experience rape or attempted rape, at some point in their lives, and data from other sources report the rate for women is as high as 1 in 4; and Whereas, according to a study by the University of Minnesota, the number of Minnesota women reporting a date-related sexual assault rises from 12 percent by the time they graduate from high school, 29 percent by age 23, to 33 percent by mid-life; and Whereas, an analysis of the Minnesota Student Survey data by the University of Minnesota estimated 60 percent of teen first pregnancies in Minnesota are preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape; and Whereas, 188 cases of child sexual abuse in Ramsey County were identified among reported cases of maltreatment in 2011; and Whereas, current estimates suggest no more than 20 percent of sexual assaults will be reported to law enforcement and less than 3 percent will result in the conviction and incarceration of the perpetrator; and Whereas, research documents that victims are far more likely to disclose their sexual assault to a friend or family member, and when these loved ones respond with disbelief, shame, or blame, victims suffer additional negative effects on their physical and psychological well-being and do not report their assault to law enforcement; and Whereas, the national public awareness campaign “Start by Believing” is designed to improve the initial responses of friends, family members, and community professionals, including law enforcement and prosecutors, so they can help victims to access supportive resources and report their assaults; and Whereas, Ramsey County has worked collaboratively across departments and with community partners for many years to prevent and respond to sexual violence in the community; and Whereas, public health and the criminal justice system have different roles and responsibilities, but are united in the goals to prevent and reduce sexual violence in our community, from children to vulnerable adults; Now Therefore, Be it Resolved by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, that the County re-dedicate itself to addressing the continuing problem of sexual violence through its support of the Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community Initiative and its goal for everyone to believe victims upon report. Now Therefore, Be it Resolved by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners that Ramsey County and its community partners will expand support for sexual violence survivors through training, education and outreach Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, that all municipal jurisdictions in Ramsey County are requested to join in this effort. 3/18/2016 Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community Initiative Summary Name of Event: Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community initiative Event Purpose Observe Sexual Awareness Month by introducing Start by Believing Ramsey County initiative Executive Summary: By this initiative, Ramsey County is taking the lead in starting an important conversation in our community about sexual violence and why there is such a gap between National survey data on those who are victims of rape and those who are held accountable. It is estimated that 1 in 6 women and 1 and 33 men are the victims of sexual violence. Only a fraction of these cases are ever reported to law enforcement and subsequently prosecuted. Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community is a community initiative to create a culture where victims feel more empowered to report their abuse and to develop an infrastructure of response that is properly informed and trained about trauma and eliminates unintentional human biases. Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community is a combined initiative among the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, Ramsey County-St. Paul Public Health Department, local law enforcement agencies and community advocacy groups. Desired Outcome - Victims  Report abuse o Upon reporting, victims are met with compassion and an “I believe” culture by law enforcement agents, prosecutors, community groups and the community as a whole o The “I believe” culture encourages more victims to report o Additional victim reporters equate to holding more abusers accountable by the criminal justice system which increases public safety in our community  Eliminate victim recantation as the “I believe” culture increases the awareness of community advocacy groups and their work to support victims through the legal process and beyond to heal their lives  Increase victim connection with community advocacy groups. Such groups support victims from reporting to healing. Advocacy groups offer free and confidential services for victims of sexual violence, their partners, families, friends and other concerns persons and as well as basic life needs, housing, food, etc. Desired Outcome – Law Enforcement Agencies – increase positive victim response  officers assigned to sexual abuse cases, and new hires, to engage in training, provided by outside County source, as to how to respond and maintain desired interaction with victims o consider internal trainings (officers speaking to officers)  practice the Start by Believing Ramsey County in all cases with sexual abuse victims  write and adopt resolutions promising to continue believing victims, upon victim’s report and throughout the process in which the Office is involved o Ramsey County Attorney’s Office and Public Health will provide a template o display framed resolution in the Office  communicate to the community the Office’s dedication to increase officers’ positive “I believe” response to sexual abuse victims, especially at the time of report. o Examples: discussing the Start by Believing Ramsey County initiative at community events such as speaking engagements national night out, etc. 3/18/2016 o consider creating print material to distribute at community events and/or distribution to sexual abuse victims (hopefully to reduce victim recantation)  Ramsey County Attorney’s Office and Public Health can help with messaging and design of such printed materials  add Start by Start by Believing Ramsey County specific initiative stickers to vehicles  add Start by Ramsey County: A Start by Believing Community initiative to Office’s websites and communication materials Desired Outcome – Community – create a culture in which sexual abuse victims are respected not rejected  Actively educate neighbors on the Start by Believing Ramsey County initiative  Consider discussing the initiative at community meetings, events, church services  Consider attending or volunteer at sexual abuse awareness events, press conferences, etc.  Consider volunteering with an advocacy group dedicated to the Start by Believing Ramsey County initiative  Consider submitting an editorial to your local newspaper, neighborhood or community groups’ newsletters  Just talk about it! 3/18/2016 Start by Believing Ramsey County Initiative Event DATE  April 13, 7:00-9:00p VENUE  Hamline University, Sundin Music Hall (1531 Hewitt Ave, St. Paul, MN 55104)  Parking: any surface lot, Visitor’s Lot in the basement of the Anderson Center (enter on Englewood) o Is parking free? AGENDA  7:00-7:30 – Reception in Lobby (easels displaying art work, sponsors’ logos and cookies)  7:30-7:35 – Rina McManus speaks  Topic: reminds everyone that sexual violence as a public health problem??  introduces County Attorney Choi  7:35-7:40 - John Choi  Introduces initiative (change the culture in the way we respond and help sexual violence victims)  Introduces Cordelia Anderson  7:40-7:50 – Cordelia Anderson speaks  educates about sexual abuse victims’ experiences)  Introduces Panel  7:50-8:45 – Group Discussion  “Panel” features four sexual abuse victims  Take community with questions  8:45-8:46 – Cordelia introduces Chief Schnell  8:46-9:00 – Maplewood Police Chief Paul Schnell (next steps, from us and for community)  Our Next Steps:  Training, municipal and law enforcement resolutions, training, education outreach  Community’s next step:  Communicate the message, Start by Believing to everyone! EVENT PIECES – For Discussion & Confirmation  Coordinators: o Cordelia: obtain panel members, facilitate panel and speak for 20 minutes o RCAO o Public Health  Partners: County law enforcement agencies, RCAO, County-City Public Health, Advocacy Groups o RCAO o Public Health o Law Enforcement Agencies 3/18/2016 o County Sheriff o Hamline University o Advocacy Groups  MNCASA (Caroline Palmer and Laura )  SOS (Emily Huemann)  League of Women Voters (Mindy Greiling)  Regions  MDH  DPS  MCRA  CLUES  Materials o Print  Poster at Event  Signage to Represent Sponsors  Pledge Poster?  Email sign-up forms?  To keep emails secure, write on paper and drop in box/bowl/etc? o Web o Designer (both o Distribution o Budget – who pays o Law Enforcement o Community Events (are there some before April 12th) o Logos o Other  Invitation o Confirmed – Print and Email o Confirmed - Use same design for printed promotional materials, add vitals o Email lists (needed from partners) o Distribution – can Emily’s volunteers help here? o Other  Event Logistics o Lobby Reception  Artwork  From whom 3/18/2016  Explanation of why the artwork is present  Cookies and beverages  Thank you to sponsors – print  Standing Tables  Framed Resolution/Proclamation  Small tables for advocacy organizations to display information  Public Health be a features table  Pledge Poster o Program  A/V Equipment  Ask Cordelia if she wants a podium  Stand or lav mics  Table & chairs (I would suggest a semi-circle of plush chairs for panel) (talk-show set up)  Community Pledge?  Ushers o Emily’s volunteers to simply wander, ask questions, remind people to give information, welcome as they enter the auditorium  Handlers o Emily’s volunteers can manage the panelists and speakers to make certain they are where they need to be on time o Suggest at least two  Attendees contact information o Sign-up sheet (can clog up the area, unless we place one on each of the standing tables) o Container in which to drop business cards o Offer our email and ask that they email us o Offer phone number o Other You’re Invited to a community dialogue on sexual violence in our community Wednesday, April 13 Hamline University Sundin Music Hall 7:00-9:00 p.m. • Hear voices of sexual violence survivors • Help transform our community’s response to sexual violence victims • Pledge to build a community that starts by believing sexual violence survivors Hosted and Presented by: AGENDA ITEM – 1I MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Admin Services SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Reform Principles Background All Council members received an email concerning Metropolitan Council Reform. The email was sent on behalf of local government leaders in the metropolitan area who believe that the Metropolitan Council should be reformed in order to be more accountable to the region it serves. A transmittal letter is attached, as well as a copy of Principles for Metropolitan Council reform, a template resolution, some frequently asked questions, and a list of communities who have adopted this initiative. Discussion Staff would like direction from the Council on whether or not they would like to proceed and adopt a resolution in support of this initiative. Attachments Attachment A: Metropolitan Council Reform Letter Attachment B: Metropolitan Governance Reform Principles Attachment C: Template Resolution Attachment D: Metropolitan Council Reform Frequently Asked Questions Attachment E: Adoptee List March 22, 2016 Dear Councilmember, We are part of a coalition of County and City leaders from the suburban metropolitan area who have become increasingly concerned with a lack of accountability from the Metropolitan Council, especially as its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues continue to expand. It is our belief that an updated Metropolitan Council governance structure, one that makes the Council accountable to the regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit this region greatly. On February 8 of this year we sent out the attached principles for Metropolitan Council reform to every city and county in the metropolitan area, asking them to adopt the principles in the form of the attached template resolution (a list of adoptees is attached). We are sending them again today to ensure that every interested local elected official has an opportunity to participate in this initiative. We ask that you adopt the attached resolution calling for substantive change to th e Council to increase local participation and collaboration to help guide orderly growth and economic development in our region. Structure Limits Local Representation Metropolitan Council members are non-elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. Thus, non-elected individuals preside over a budget of more than $1.5 billion per year (more than the budget of the City of Minneapolis), and collect over $80 million in property taxes. We believe an organization with this kind of taxing and spending authority should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong city and county representation. This call for reform echoes the 2011 conclusion of the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor. In the evaluation report Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council with a mix of gubernatorial appointees and elected officials from the region. Substantial Changes In Role of Council Since 1967 The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provide regional planning services for the Twin Cities area. However, at the same time the Council’s management of growth, in particular its coordination of regional services, has changed dramatically. The Council’s scope has increased, but not its level of accountability to the local governments a nd citizens of the metropolitan area. Without the authority to appoint Council members, m any citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the present Metropolitan Council, undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. In closing, we hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the att ached resolution with principles to strengthen regional planning and development. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Claire Pritchard at 651.438.4540 (or at Claire.Pritchard@co.dakota.mn.us) for more information or to schedule a presentation by an elected official to your Council or Board. We look forward to working with you in this effort to unite the region for continued growth and prosperity. Please make every effort to return the adopted resolution to Claire.Pritchard@co.dakota.mn.us as early as possible given your approval process. Regards, Sincerely, Rhonda Sivarajah Anoka County Board of Commissioners Matt Look Anoka County Board of Commissioners Scott Schulte Anoka County Board of Commissioners Randy Maluchnik Carver County Board of Commissioners Tom Workman Carver County Board of Commissioners Nancy Schouweiler Dakota County Board of Commissioners Liz Workman Dakota County Board of Commissioners Chris Gerlach Dakota County Board of Commissioners Mike Beard Scott County Board of Commissioners Jon Ulrich Scott County Board of Commissioners Metropolitan Governance Reform Twin Cities’ Local Government Coalition -Statement of Objectives- A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has joined together to develop a position statement and a set of principles for improving metropolitan governance in the Twin Cities. The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council. The Coalition’s objectives for its collective effort to improved governance are: 1. To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governance—as represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 2. To align local government interests behind a reform effort—through formation of a broad coalition of metropolitan Cities and Counties —and a common position. 3. To be prepared for any efforts—legislative and otherwise—to reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Attached is the Coalition’s Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform. 2 Twin Cities’ Local Government Coalition Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective Metropolitan Council should reflect the following principles, which were developed based on the group’s core Statement of Belief (printed below). STATEMENT OF BELIEF: The Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions. It should not operate as a state agency—as it does in its current form—answerable to only one person, the Governor. Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region. II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council. III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council. IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor. V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government. VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. 3 Background and Justification of Position The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the region’s growth and to provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Council or diminish the importance of regional collaboration. However, the Council’s management of growth, and in particular the coordination and delivery of regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved. Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development, farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and the 800 MHz radio network. The Council’s recent focus on reducing poverty and disparities makes it even more essential that within the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs--- which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development/employment, counseling, public health, nutrition and family “home visiting” services, workforce and specialized housing programs and many other anti-poverty and human services. In these and many other circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues. Thus, while a strong regional approach is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non-elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder. The best way to ensure that the interests of citizens of the metropolitan-area are represented is to have a preponderance of locally elected officials on the Council--individuals that do not serve exclusively at the pleasure of the Governor. This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to meet federal guidelines to serve as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council “more directly accountable to its public1.” Regional governance is vital to the metropolitan area’s continued success. However, in order for a regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of suburban counties is working to join the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity. 1 Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 TEMPLATE RESOLUTION: Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authorit y, to be effective, must be credible, and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metr opolitan Council; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partner for regional development and progress. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ____________ supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor; V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government; VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. 1 FREQUENTLY A SKED QUESTIONS: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL R EFORM PRINCIPLES 1) Why now? Over the years, the role of the Metropolitan Council has expanded from that of a regional planning agency to its now self-described role as “the regional policy-making body… and provider of essential services for the Twin Cities metropolitan region.” In no other major metropolitan region in the United States are duly elected representatives so divorced from policy-making and the provision of regional services. Reform of the Metropolitan Council has been a growing concern of many local governments for many years, as the Council’s responsibilities have expanded and the lack of accountability to metro-area residents has increased. The release of ThriveMSP2040 reinvigorated the drive for reform in many cities and counties who were unhappy with aspects of the plan and the process by which it was produced. However, our call for change is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. Councilmembers do not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of only one elected official: the Governor. We realized this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst that renewed our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 2) Who makes up the coalition? The coalition originated with elected officials from Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott Counties, who share a collective opinion that the Metropolitan Council must be more accountable to the regional constituency. They made the decision to develop principles for reform, and, knowing it was important to have the perspective of cities represented as well, invited interested elected city officials to join the group. The city officials (listed in Attachment A) represent themselves alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of their entire councils. Together this group developed a mutually-agreed-upon set of principles for reform. 3) You’re asking cities to adopt these principles, knowing that they go against the position of Metro Cities. Doesn’t this undermine the work of the Metro Cities organization? Metro Cities is a voluntary membership organization, representing 88 of the nearly 140 cities in the metro area. We believe that Metro Cities plays a vital role in advocating for city interests, and we did invite them to play a part in the development of the shared principles. However, they ultimately decided to withdraw from the group due the incompatibility of some of our 2 positions. We had hoped to work together toward reform, and we hope to work together in the future if the position of the organization changes. However, in the meantime we are aware that many cities hold positions on Metropolitan Council reform that also contradict the official Metro Cities position, and we believe that these cities, along with counties, should have their voices heard in the Legislature. 4) What are the next steps? These draft principles have been distributed to every city and county in the metropolitan area, and we hope as many as possible adopt these principles. We are eager to discuss the principles, along with our reasons for advocating reform, with any County Board or City Council in the area. During the Legislative Session we will present these adopted resolutions to Legislators to illustrate how important reform is to local governments in the metro area, and we will work with Legislators to advance reform proposals that meet the adopted principles. 5) How do other metropolitan areas provide regional planning? Every other major metropolitan area in the United States, as well as every other metropolitan area in Minnesota, has a metropolitan planning organization that is made up of a majority of local elected officials (Attachment B). The Metropolitan Council does have a more expansive role than planning organizations in other metropolitan areas, and is involved in a wider array of metropolitan service operations. However, we believe this is an even stronger reason why elected officials should serve. The Council has more responsibility than other metropolitan planning organizations- it stands to reason that it should have more accountability to the electorate, not less. 6) Is this an effort to get rid of the Metropolitan Council? Absolutely not. Regional governance is important, but it would be more effective and credible with local representation. In the current system, Metropolitan Council members are non- elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan-area voters. We believe that only elected officials who are directly accountable to the electorate should hold the responsibility to impose taxes. The Council has a budget of over $1.5 billion in 2016 (more than that of the City of Minneapolis) and the authority to levy taxes on metropolitan-area residents ($82 million in 2016). We believe that the Council should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong representation from local elected officials. 3 7) Is this a reaction to the ThriveMSP2040 plan? No. Many cities and counties were unhappy with aspects of the Council’s plan. However, our call for reform is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home to many what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. The Council does not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one- the Governor. We realized that this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst to renew our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 8) Is there other support for this? Yes, many other entities and organizations have come out in support for reform. In 2011, for example, the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report recommending that the Metropolitan Council be composed of a majority elected officials, citing the Council’s “limited credibility” due to a governance structure that limits accountability. The City of Minneapolis also passed a resolution on January 14, 2011, asking the Legislature to reform the Council so that a “majority of council members shall be locally elected city and county officials.” Furthermore, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, responsible for certifying the Council as eligible to receive federal transportation and transit funding, have encouraged reform of the Council to make it “more directly accountable to its public.” 9) Would these principles turn the Metropolitan Council into a Council of Governments (COG)? No. Councils of Governments have little authority beyond transportation planning and regional coordination of service. The level of authority that the Legislature has granted the Metropolitan Council, including the authority to levy taxes, is unique. None of the proposed principles diminish Council authority in any way, and will not transform the Council into a COG. 10) Is this a partisan issue? No, this is not a partisan issue- we would feel the same way whether the Governor was a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, our reform efforts started in 2011, when the Governor was Republican. What troubles us is that the entire membership and focus of the Council can shift depending on who is in power. Many regional issues require very long-term, consistent approaches, which can be altered dramatically every four or eight years by a new Governor. The Council should represent the long-term interests of the region, not a single individual. 4 11) Is this about the suburbs complaining? No. This is about ensuring that the entire region feels represented by the Metropolitan Council. 12) Is the Metropolitan Council accountable to their constituents? No. Although the Council has the power to levy taxes on metropolitan area residents, it is not accountable to those residents and is instead solely accountable to the Office of the Governor, which over the last five election cycles was only once elected with majority support from metro- area voters. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES: 13) Aren’t local elected officials too busy to serve on the Council? There is a time commitment to serving on the Council, true, but it is only a part-time engagement. Many current Metropolitan Council members hold other full-time jobs. Furthermore, local elected officials serve on the metropolitan planning organizations of every other large city in the country. If these principles are enacted it will be part of cities and counties’ role to ensure that those appointed to the Council are comfortable with the time commitment. All elected officials must consider their availability and take responsibility for effective allocation of their time. There are 43 elected county officials and approximately 800 elected city officials in the metropolitan area; we are confident that a sufficient number within that pool would be ready, willing, and able to serve on the Council. 14) Some claim that local elected office and Met Council membership are “incompatible” offices. Is that true? There is nothing in the state constitution or in statute that makes these offices incompatible. Reform legislation authorizing service on the Met Council by local elected officials would also resolve any such questions. As a practical matter, incompatibility arises when an individual cannot discharge the duties of two offices with “fidelity and propriety.” Holding a different point of view, or needing to represent the interest of a particular constituency on an issue, does not prohibit a member from fulfilling the responsibility with “fidelity and propriety.” In fact, it is the problem-solving and resolution of diverse viewpoints and perspectives that gives strength to our elected bodies at every other level of government – including city councils, county boards, and the 5 legislature. Even some current appointed Met Council members have history, affiliations, and/or allegiances with /to other organizations. 15) Isn’t it a conflict of interest to ask an official elected by one specific city or county to represent an entire region? Local elected officials already serve in many capacities where they must consider regional interests. The Council’s Transportation Advisory Board, for example, which recommends allocation of transportation and transit funding throughout the region, is made up of majority of local elected officials. In fact, the federal government requires all regional metropolitan planning organizations, which administer transportation and transit funding in metro areas (and are thus required to have a regional focus) to be made up of a majority of elected officials. Even the structure of County Boards and City Councils requires local elected officials to represent the interests of the entire city/county, rather than the specific district that elected them. There are hundreds of examples of local officials serving on regional boards and joint powers agreements where they collectively share authority in areas beyond each member’s individual jurisdiction. 16) Wouldn’t this make the Council more parochial, more politicized, and more beholden to special interest groups? We believe that a fundamental principle of effective government is accountability to those impacted by its decisions. It is inherent in the nature of the political process, however, that increased input from stakeholders of all interests could raise concerns of increased politicization. However, this concern would be mitigated by the participation of a broad range of local elected officials who would strengthen the Council’s accountability and increase its flexibility; these are necessary steps to increase the credibility of the Council with metro-area residents. Furthermore, we are confident that concerns about parochialism and politicization could be mitigated by a fair, regionally balanced, selection process that allows for advocacy, debate, and voting. In addition, the Council would continue to be overseen by the Legislature to help ensure that it remains an effective regional tool. In fact, a Council composed of a majority of elected officials may have more legitimacy in the eyes of the Legislature, as it will be seen as an independent, responsive entity. A Council with a majority of local elected officials will be able to independently interact with the Legislature, rather than as a State agency under executive branch control. 17) Isn’t there a potential for Council appointees to be geographically imbalanced? We believe the most important issue is that of accountability; it is our goal to make the Council accountable to the entirety of the metropolitan area. These principles do not in and of themselves guarantee geographic balance, as they are purposely at a high level, but we would 6 are confident that an eventual nomination process would take pains to ensure geographic equity. Furthermore, it is worth nothing that although current Council members do reside in Council districts they have no accountability to those districts. Their job security rests entirely in the hands of a single individual- the Governor. And even if one considers current Council members to be “representing” their districts, this does not guarantee geographic balance. For many years not a single Councilmember resided in Scott County, for example. 18) What about Metro Cities’ argument that if local elected officials were on the Council they would serve as both “regulator” and the “regulated”? The Council does have limited regulatory functions. However, they are structured to encourage regional compatibility and consistency, rather than setting standards to be measured against. Furthermore, for the things that are regulated by the Council (e.g. sewers) the collective public interest will outweigh the interests of single municipality. Even when the Council does exercise its limited regulatory responsibilities, its members should have strong ties to the electorate so that stakeholders have input in the implementation of such regulations. Any issues with regulation can be addressed through targeted reform of the Council. 19) Isn’t it important to the Council’s effectiveness that it be a separate regional government, able to operate independently from local governments? We support keeping the Metropolitan Council as its own separate entity. However, as an organization with a $1.5 billion budget and authority to levy taxes, it cannot and must not be truly independent- it must, of course, be subject to oversight. That oversight is currently provided by the Governor and the Legislature; we are not asking to remove either entity from this process. The Governor and the Legislature will likely always play a role in shaping the future of the metropolitan area. All we are asking is that local governments, who have the greatest amount of expertise on the practical impact of the Council’s policies, have a voice as well. The creation of a Council with a broad-based constituency will strengthen the regional government and make it more responsive to the needs of the region, thus strengthening its legitimacy. 20) Wouldn’t having local elected officials serve reduce the amount of regional expertise on the Council? This argument belittles the vast amount of knowledge and broad range of expertise of so many local elected officials. Local elected officials do not operate in a vacuum; they all must consider the region in which they operate and be aware of regional issues in order to be effective in their 7 positions. Local officials already serve in numerous regional organizations in which they have developed significant issue expertise. Furthermore, current Council appointments are made by the Governor, resulting in significant turnover each time a new Governor is elected; this is not conducive to building up regional expertise. 21) What happens if an elected official leaves office in the middle of his/her Metropolitan Council appointment? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the responsibility of the Legislature. These issues can be considered as a plan develops. 22) What about the criticisms of the role of the Council? These principles don’t address any of that. True, and many of us do have thoughts on the role of the Council. However, we believe that the first step is to reform the governance of the Council. Once the Council is accountable to its metropolitan constituency the role that it should play in the region’s future can be considered. 23) You mention a system of voting and checks and balances- can you elaborate? We proposed principles which we believe are worthy of being embodied in a plan for reform. We chose not to present the details of a specific plan, which is ultimately the responsibility of the Legislature. However, we do believe that the Council should reflect all citizens in the area, balancing the interests of large and small, without allowing the areas with the largest populations to drive all decision-making. A TTACHMENT A: PARTICIPANTS IN THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP Participating County Officials: Anoka County: Commissioner Matt Look Commissioner Scott Schulte Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah County Administrator Jerry Soma Carver County: Commissioner Randy Maluchnik Commissioner Tom Workman County Administrator Dave Hemze Dakota County: Commissioner Chris Gerlach Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler Commissioner Liz Workman County Manager Brandt Richardson Scott County: Commissioner Mike Beard Commissioner Jon Ulrich County Administrator Gary Shelton Participating City Officials: Bethel: Councilmember Brian Kirkham Burnsville: Councilmember Bill Coughlin Chanhassen: Mayor Denny Laufenburger Elko New Market: Mayor Bob Crawford Jordan: Councilmember Mike Franklin Lino Lakes: Mayor Jeff Reinert Prior Lake: Mayor Ken Hedberg Rosemount: Councilmember Jeff Weisensel Shakopee: Mayor Bill Mars Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure San Diego Association of Governments The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various state and federal agencies and other organizations. Summary: All voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority The Board consists of 15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). The 3 other government representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Oakland CA) The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local organizations. The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Houston-Galveston Area Council The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and 1 representative of the Independent School Districts. The local elected officials represent cities and counties in the metro area, although some cities and counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure North Central Texas Council of Governments The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. The metro-area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials (although there are no county elected officials- counties are represented by judges). There are no citizen members. Boston Region MPO The Board consists of 14 local elected officials, 8 representatives from other governments and organizations, and 2 nonvoting representatives from the federal government. The elected officials are all mayors and selectmen of local towns; there are no county representatives. There are 2 representatives from regional planning organizations, as well as representatives from regional transit and transportation authorities and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of the voting members are local elected officials. There are also no citizen members. Atlanta Regional Commission The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. There is 1 citizen representative from each of 15 districts in the metro area, elected by the 23 public officials. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are citizen members selected by local elected officials. Puget Sound Regional Council The Council has a general assembly consisting of all elected officials from all member jurisdictions. The Assembly establishes the budget and elects representatives to the Executive Board. The Executive Board consists of 30 elected officials and 2 representatives from the Washington State Transportation Commission and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are selected by local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives from state government. The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen members. Maricopa Association of Governments The Council consists of 32 local elected officials, 4 state representatives, and 1 member of a citizen organization. The elected officials are mayors, councilmembers, etc. from metro towns, cities, and reservations. There are also 2 representatives each from the State Transportation Board and the Arizona Department of Transportation. Finally, there is a representative from the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member, a representative of a citizen oversight commission. Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at-large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at-large members. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission The Board consists of 16 state government appointees, 24 local government elected officials and staff, and 2 attorneys. as well as a number of non-voting members. There are 4 representatives from the PA Department of Transportation and 3 from the NJ Department of Transportation. There are also 3 representatives from the PA Governor's Policy Office, 1 other PA Governor's appointee, 3 from the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and 2 appointees from the NJ Governor. Summary: The majority of voting members are either local elected officials or local government staff members. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas Name Governance Structure New York Metropolitan Transportation Council The Board consists of 5 local elected officials, 3 city representatives, 1 state representative, and 7 non-voting members from various federal and state agencies. The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city representatives are heads of the New York City Transportation Authority, Department of Transportation, and Department of City Planning. The state representative is from the New York State Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials or representatives from city government. There are no citizen members. Baltimore Regional Transportation Board The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state departments (3 non-voting). A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments The Council has a general assembly consisting of delegates from all local governments in the region. The Executive Committee consists of local elected officials as well as representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning The Board consists of appointments from each of the metro counties- the members are a combination of elected officials and representatives of nonprofits and private industry. There are also 2 non-voting Governor's appointees and a non-voting representative of the Regional Transportation Authority. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials and all are appointed by local jurisdictions. There is a Citizens' Advisory Committee created by the Board. Southern California Association of Governments The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all members of the Los Angeles City Council and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota Name Governance Structure Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council The Board consists of 15 local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens, and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority. There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of Superior. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the Planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and Moorhead Planning Commissions. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school districts, and 2 citizen members. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. La Crosse Area Planning Committee The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Principles on Metropolitan Council Reform: List of Adoptees (as of March 22, 2016) Cities Blaine Bethel Centerville Chanhassen Chaska Cologne Columbus Elko New Market Farmington Forest Lake Hamburg Hampton Jordan Lino Lakes Loretto Mayer New Germany New Prague Norwood Young America Oak Grove Prior Lake St. Francis Shakopee Victoria Watertown Counties Anoka Carver Dakota Scott AGENDA ITEM – 1J MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Admin Services SUBJECT: Summer Hours 2016 Background Annually the City Council makes a decision on whether or not to approve summer hours for the City. These hours generally run from Memorial Day until Labor Day each year, although there have been a few exceptions in the past. The City Hall hours change during this period to 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday – Thursday and Friday 7:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Public Works hours change during this period to 6:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday – Thursday and Friday from 6:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Discussion Staff would like direction from the Council on whether or not they would like to proceed and approve summer hours for 2016 at its next City Council meeting. AGENDA ITEM – 1K MEMORANDUM DATE: April, 18, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sue Iverson, Interim City Administrator/Director of Finance and Admin Services SUBJECT: Personnel Committee Update Background/Discussion The Personnel Committee would like to update the entire City Council on Personnel issues. Mayor Grant and Councilmember Holden will be speaking on this item.