Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 07-21-2003 ""' It/! Mayor: Beverly Aplik&wski 0ImeiI Members: ,Davltl Graot Breada IWden GreIlI Larsoo LeIs Rem t ~H1LLS Arden Hills City Council WORK SESSION 4:45 p.m. Monday, July 21, 2003 Agenda (The times may vary depending upon length of discussitJn.) 1. Can to Order DEPARTMENT STAFF Coralie Wilson Nortlt Subnrban CommmllelltioD Clr...-.l...hta Update IJttuor Liceuse - OptionalZ:Oll lUll. OosiDg Cynthia Young COMMUNITY SERVICES 3. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE A. Karth Lake Water Level: Discussion Aaron Panish TbomasJ.Moore Greg Brown B. Celebrating Arden Hills: Event R.e-Cap , Michelle Olson C. 3rd lift Station Reconstruction Thomas J. Moore & Greg Brown 4. ADMINISTRATION A. "Conceal & Catty" Discussion L Firearms on City Property ii. Work Place Violence Policy Cynthia Young , B. AdministratorSearch CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Council Member Holden B. Council Member Larson C. Council Member Rem D. Council Member Grant , E. MayotAplikowski Harry Bru1IIPDI 1M!! \V;JJ.IgIl~y 96 Arden IIBI8i MiIIlleIOta 55111 6!l1.&L511O TIME,' 4:46 6:00 7:00 8;00 ~.._"--,-:---..-......o:._ <C_ .c:.. .""-'~~_c_. _.~,~..~~ - - e ~ ~. fN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2003 TO: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski Council Member David Grant Council Member Brenda Holden Council Member Gregg Larson Council Member Lois Rem Aaron Parrish, Interim City Administrator I Community Services Director /I f1 FROM: SUBJECT: North Suburban Communications Commission Update ENCLOSURES: Overview Cor Wilson will be in attendance to update the Council on general North Suburban Communications Commission issues and the ongoing litigation with Comcast regarding the payment of franchise fees for cable modem service. Information relative to the current legal proceedings has been provided in previous non-agenda packets. Additional copies can be provided at the Council's request. Requested Action Provided for informational purposes - - - ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM Date: July 15, 2003 To: Mayor and City Council From: Cynthia Young, Deputy Clerk/Human Res cc: Aaron Parrish/Interim City Administrator Subject: 2 a.m. On-sale Liquor License BACKGROUND: The 2003 Minnesota Legislative Session passed legislation to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the liquor licensed pretnises until 2:00 a.m. on all days of the week effective July 1, 2003. Licensees will need to apply for a special 2:00 a.m. license from the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division and pay a fee based on their previous annual 12 months liquor receipts. The Arden Hills Municipal Code currently states no sale of intoxicating liquor may be made by an on-sale licensee between 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Monday through Saturday; or after 1 :00 a.m. on Sunday, unless the licensee has also been issued a Sunday on-sale liquor license. If the licensee has been issued a Sunday on-sale liquor license, they may sell intoxicating liquor for consumption on the pretnises in conjunction with the sale of food between the hours of 12:00 noon on Sunday and 1:00 a.m. on Monday. Staff has received requests from on-sale liquor establishments to amend the Municipal Code which would allow the sale of alcoholic beverages until 2:00 a.m. on all days of the week. (Staff has notified cumnt liquor licensees to participate in the Monday, July 21, 2003 Work Session discussion.) Following is an informal survey of how neighboring Cities have reacted to the legislation: City Amend to 2:00 a.m. Comments Closinl!' Shoreview NO Roseville NO Council discussinlt Moundsview NO Vadnais Heilthts NO No request to change New Bri".hton YES Fridlev NO Pending Blaine NO 3/25 in favor of change Apple Valley NO Little interest from licensee's Rosemount YES Norwood/Y oun". America NO Andover NO Bumsville NO Plvmouth YES Statutory City BrookIvn Park YES Eden Prairie YES Robbinsdale YES Manle Grove NO Council Considering e - - . - e ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item No. 3.B July 23,2003 TO: Aaron Parrish - Director of Community Services CC: Thomas J. Moore - Director of Operations and Maintenance FROM: Michelle Olson - Recreation Program Supervisor -tJl!) SUBJECT: "Celebrating Arden Hills - Beach Barbecue" Backl!round Earlier this year, the City Council made the decision to continue what was formerly called "Day in the Park" as an annual event. Despite the weather issues, the 2003 "Celebrating Arden Hills - Beach Barbecue" was indeed a success! As a follow up to the event, I would like the City Council to discuss a couple of items regarding this annual event. . How should this event be planned, organized, and carried out? The event committee members continue to dwindle. This year's committee was a small group of seven residents (including the Mayor and her son), one council liaison, and one staff liaison. Do we want to attempt to recruit members for this committee or has this changed to a staff driven event? If the City Council wants this to be a staff driven event, how will that be handled? . Is the Council comfortable with the current scope of the event? Do we want to continue a catered theme dinner? What did you like about the event? What didn't you like? Is there anything different that Council would like to try for the future? Recommendation Staff is looking for feedback on this year's event and would also like to be provided direction on how the event is organized, planned, and carried out for the future. e ~ ~ ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM Date: Agenda Item No. 4.A.i. and ii. July 16" 2003 To: Mayor and City Council From: Cynthia Young, Deputy Clerk/Human Reso Subject: Firearms on City Property and Work Place Violence Policy Ene. League of Minnesota Cities "Conceal and Carry" Fact Sheet Draft Resolution Work Place Violence Policy BACKGROUND: Staff has responded to the Council direction to explore options the City may choose to pursue regarding the recendy adopted Minnesota Personal Protection Act. In April, Governor Pawlenty signed the Act into law which went into effect May 28, 2003. The number of pennit holders is expected to grow from the current 12,000 to 90,000 during the next two years, and the law removes the authority of municipalities to post signage which prohibits concealed weapons, this means guns can be carried into City Hall, Council meetings and recreation facilities and all other municipal property. For Council's review, Staff has enclosed the League of Minnesota Cities Personal Protection Act of 2003 Fact Sheet, a draft Resolution stating the City Council's opposition to certain provisions in the Act, and finally, a draft Work Place Violence Policy. e e e LMC Phone: (651) 281-1200 (800) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-1299 roD (651) 281-1290 Web Site: http://wwwJmnc.org/ LelJ9UI? nf Minnesota Cil;etr CiHIr$ promoting O1xceJI"nce Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003 "Conceal-and-Carry Law" -- What It Means For Cities Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently signed into law a bill that reduces local authority over issuance of concealed handgun permits and is expected to significantly increase the number of permit- holders. The Minnesota Personal Protection Act, (Senate File 842, will be 2003 Minn. Sess. Law, Chap. 28), passed in the House on an 88-46 vote and in the Senate on a 37-30 vote, and was signed into law by Gov. Pawlenty on April 28. It removes all authority from police chiefs to issue conceal and carry permits, and mandates that sheriffs issue permits to all applicants except those convicted of serious crimes. The law also prohibits cities from prohibiting guns on city property, except in limited circumstances. More than 300 organizations, including city councils, statewide police associations, churches and health and education groups, opposed the legislation, arguing that the new law would put an estimated 90,000 additional concealed weapons onto the streets. Currently, fewer than 12,000 individuals have permits to carry concealed weapons. Proponents of the bill argued that sheriffs and police chiefs had too much discretionary authority, and that applicants should decide for themselves if they need to carry a concealed weapon. Three groups supported the legislation: the National Rifle Association, Concealed Carry Reform Now, and the Republican Party of Minnesota. An amendment offered in the House on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities would have allowed public facilities, such as city halls, parks, and recreation centers, to prohibit concealed weapons on the premises. The amendment failed on a vote of 48-84. No similar amendment was attempted in the Senate. Conceal-and-carry law: What it means for cities League staff has prepared this memorandum to help cities understand some ofthe most significant implications ofthe new law. In addition, links to related information are provided at the end of the memo. The League will continue to supplement this memorandum as additional information is gathered about how the law is being interpreted by affected groups. Please let us know if there are additional questions you would like us to address. 145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122. www.lmnc.org e e e 2 Can cities prohibit guns on city property? No, with some limited exceptions. While the law allows private property owners, who follow a specific set of procedures, to request that guns not be brought into a "private establishment," the law does not generally afford cities the same ability. For example, a private business may prohibit the carrying of guns on its premises if the business "prominently" posts a "conspicuous" sign at each entrance to the establishment stating that the "(NAME OF OPERA TOR) BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES." In addition, the business owner or their agent must personally inform "the person of the posted request, and demand compliance." Again, cities do not have a similar ability to "post" thcir facilities. The situations in which cities may limit guns on city property appear to be limited to the following circumstances: . Employees. As an employer, cities "may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment." The exception does not apply to parking areas. (This exception is further discussed below.) . Property used for "school purposes." It is a misdemeanor for an individual to carry a firearm on "school property." "School property" is defined as including "a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased or owned by the school; a child care center licensed under chapter 245A during the period children are present and participating in child care programs; . . . and that portion of a building or facility under the temporary, exclusive control of a public or private school, a school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school related use." Accordingly, if city property is being used for any of these defined school related purposes, guns are prohibited. . Private use of city property. A private party that leases space in city buildings or facilities may prohibit firearms in the leased spaced by following the posting and notice requirements described above. The city may also be able to condition the private use of city facilities on an agreement to ban guns. However, as a landlord, the city may not restrict the "lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests." . Persons under the influence of alcohol. A person is prohibited from carrying a pistol in a public place while under influence of drugs or alcohol, or where the person's blood alcohol concentration is more than 0.04. This exception may have particular applicability to municipal liquor establishments. Consumption of one or two alcoholic beverages can often put a person's blood alcohol level above 0.04. So, although municipal liquor stores do not have the same ability to "post" their premises as private establishments, it might be pennissible for a municipal liquor store (particularly on-sale facility) to adopt a policy requiring customers to disclose whether they are carrying a gun. As an alternative to attempting to ban guns on city property, the city may want to consider posting portions of city facilities as "authorized personnel only." This would make it a trespass violation for an individual to go into areas of city hall that are not normally accessible to the public. 145 University Avenue West 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 0 (651) 281-12000 (800) 925-1122 0 www.hnnc.org - ~ ~ 3 In addition, the city may be able to limit weapons on city property where the city has a reasonable basis to suspect an individual constitutes a health or safety risk. For instance if a person has made threats in the past, it may be legitimate for the city to prohibit the individual from possessing a gun on city property. Finally, cities may want to draw a distinction between access to city property and access to city services and personnel. For instance, it may be acceptable to condition participation in city recreation programs on an agreement to disarm. If a city wants to try to argue this distinction, it should consult with its attorney in order to develop a well-reasoned and legally defensible policy to support such an action. Can the city prohibit employees from bringing firearms to work with them? If 50, can the city discipline employees for violations? Yes, the law specifically allows an employer, public or private, to "establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of employment." The law also allows the city to discipline employees for violations of the policy. Note also that Minn. Stat. Sec. 626.84, subd. 2, which has been in existence for a number of years, seems to prohibit city employees (other than licensed officers) from carrying guns while on duty. This means cities can establish a policy that prohibits employees from carrying or possessing firearms while: . Working on city property. . Working in any location on behalf of the city. . Driving on city business. . Rjding as a passenger on city business. . Performing emergency or on-call work after hours on behalf of the city. . Attending training or conferences on behalf ofthe city. (A link to a sample policy on this issue is included at the end of this memo.) The law also states that an employer cannot prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area. For many employees, this means that they will leave any firearms in their cars during the workday if the city has a policy prohibiting possession while at work. This could raise issues of security for city parking facilities. However, it may be difficult to enforce a policy against possessing a firearm at work if the employee routinely uses his or her car for city business. In this case, the city may have to allow an employee to "check" a firearm during the workday and retrieve it after work. The police department is likely to be in the best position to deal with the duty of checking firearms. This duty will require locking the firearms in a secure location and implementing procedures to ensure that only appropriate city staff can retrieve them. If the police department cannot perform this function, it would be a good idea to give the employee checking the firearms some basic training on how to safely handle firearms. 145 University Avenue West 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 0 (651) 281-1200 0 (800) 925-11220 wwwJmnc.org - - ~ 4 The city may also find it difficult to handle situations where an employee must respond to an emergency after-hours. In this case, since the employee would be on duty, the city can probably prohibit the employee from carrying a firearm in their private vehicle unless the vehicle is merely used to drive to a city parking lot, remains in the parking lot and is not used to respond to the call. Can the city restrict elected officials from carrying firearms while conducting city business? The law does not specifically address this issue. Therefore, it depends on whether elected officials would be considered "employees" of the city under this particular law. This determination could be different from city to city, depending on a number of factors. For example, some cities have specifically taken actions to designate their elected officials as "employees" in order to offer them certain types of benefits, such as workers' compensation coverage, group health and life insurance, and coverage in pension and retirement plans. These cities are more likely to be able to make an argument that the elected officials should be treated as employees under this law. On the other hand, many state and federal employment laws tend to exempt clected officials from coverage. For example, elected officials are not considered employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs minimum wage and overtime. They are also specifically exempt from the state law that defines public employees for purposes of collective bargaining rights. The best practice is for the city to examine how it has treated elected officials in the past on various types of issues and remain consistent with those practices. For example, ifthe city has designated elected officials as employees for purposes of workers' compensation coverage and other benefits, it should probably designate them as employces for purposes of this law as well. Can the city restrict volunteers from carrying firearms when performing duties on behalf of the city? Probably not, but a city is not required to use volunteers who carry handguns. A true "volunteer" probably cannot be restricted from carrying firearms on the basis of being an employee of the city. However, the city may be able to adopt a policy stating that it will not use volunteers unless they sign an agreement that they will not carry a firearm while acting on behalf of the city. In defining city volunteers, the city should take a particularly careful look at its volunteer firefighters. Many fire departments in the state compensate their volunteer firefighters in a manner that would probably be seen by the Department of Labor as making them ineligible for volunteer status under wage and hour laws. The city should attempt to be consistent in its definition of volunteer firefighters either as true volunteers or as "paid on call" city employees. If the city determines that its volunteer firefighters are actually employees, they can be included in the city's general policy prohibiting employees from carrying firearms while on duty. A similar argument could possibly be made with respect to positions such as ambulance attendants, 145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122. www.hnnc.org - - ~ 5 first responders, police reserves, and emergency response volunteers, all of whom are categorized as employees under Minnesota's workers compensation laws. If they are true volunteers, the city may be able to require thcm to sign an agreement that they will not carry a firearm while acting on behalf of the city. Included with this information is a link to a Fact Sheet that describes factors to look at in determining whcther an individual truly is a volunteer for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. What additional enforcement obligations does the law impose on local law enforcement officials? Crimes under the law. The following is a list of some of the crimes under the new law: . It is a gross misdemeanor for a person to carry a pistol in a public place without a permit. . It is a petty misdemeanor for a person authorized to carry a gun to not have the "permit card" in immediate possession. The charge must be dismisscd if the person later demonstrates in court or in the office of the arresting officer that the person was authorized to carry the pistol at the time of the alleged violation. A violation of this provision does not result in a forfeiture of the person's gun. . It is a petty misdemeanor for a permit holder to fail to notify the issuing sheriff of a change of address or a lost or destroyed card. A violation of this provision does not result in a forfeiture of the person's gun. . It is a misdemeanor for a person with a permit to carry or possess a fIrearm on school property. A violation of this provision does not result in a forfeiture of the person's gun. . The law continues to make it a felony for a person without a permit to carry or possess a firearm "while knowingly" on school property. . It is a petty misdemeanor to remain at a "private establishment" that has banned weapons. The private establishment must properly post the establishment as banning guns, must have personally informed the individual that the establishment bans guns, and must have asked the individual to comply. A violation ofthis provision does not result in a forfeiture of the person's gun. The owner of a private establishment may not ban guns in a parking facility or parking area. . The law creates a new set of crimes known as "carrying while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance." The processes and procedures are very similar to those for driving while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The one notable difference is that it is a misdemeanor for a person to carry a pistol in a public place when the person's alcohol concentration is less than 0.10, but more than 0.04. A violation of the 0.04 limit does not result in a forfeiture ofthe person's gun. Contracts with County Sheriff to conduct permitting activities. The law removes pennit issuance responsibility from local police chiefs and places it with the county sheriffs. A sheriff may contract with a police chief to process permits, but "the sheriff remains the issuing authority and the police chief acts as the sheriff's agent." The obligations associated with taking applications, conducting background checks, and issuing the permits are significant. 145 University Avenue West 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 0 (651) 281-1200 0 (800) 925-1122 0 www.lmnc.org - ~ e 6 Accordingly, the League recommends that cities carefully consider the risks and benefits before entering into such contracts. We would also recommend that the contract make it clear that the county would cover the liability for police chiefs' action. There is potential liability if the chiefs do not follow procedures such as the mandatory background checks. Notice to police chiefs of permit applications. When an application for a permit is filed with the county sheriff, the sheriff is required to notify the chief of police of the municipality where the applicant resides. The chief of police is then authorized, but not required, to provide "any information relevant to the issuance of the permit." While the law does not impose an obligation to provide information, local law enforcement officials may want to adopt policies that articulate what sources of information they will review in responding to notification of a permit application from a county sheriff. Responsibilities of prosecutors. Whcn a person is charged with an offense that would, upon conviction, prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney is required to ascertain whether the person is a permit holder. ]fthe person is a permit holder, the prosecutor is required to notifY the issuing sheriff that the pcrson has been charged with a prohibiting offense. The prosccutor must also notifY the sheriff ofthe final disposition of the case. In addition to the felony charges that would trigger this reporting obligation for county attorneys, local prosecutors will also have this obligation for certain offenses such as Minn. Stat. Sec. 518B. 14, violations of orders for protection; Sec. 609.2242 subd. 3, domestic assault; and Sec. 609.749, subd. 8, harassment, and stalking. There could bc potential liability to the city and its prosecutor if these responsibilities are not carried out. What authority do cities have to regulate handguns? Not much. The law provides that "this section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and cstablishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, govemment official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or government authority may change, modifY, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry." In addition, Minn. Stat. Section 471.633 states that: "The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that: (a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and (b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law. Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void." These two statutes severely limit a city's ability to regulate the carrying of handguns. The only possible exceptions appear to be the ability to adopt local regulations limiting the brandishing and discharge of weapons within the city and thc possible ability to regulate establishments where handguns may be present. For instance, because the law makes it a crime to possess a pistol while under the influence of alcohol, the city may be able to adopt an amendment to its liquor regulations, requiring all liquor license holders to ban handguns. 145 University Avenue West 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-20440 (651) 281-1200 0 (800) 925-11220 www.hnnc.org e ~ ~ 7 How are permit-application data classified under the MN Government Data Practices Act? All permit-application data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems are classified as private. (M.S. 13.87, subd. 2.) As a result, only the applicant and individuals within the state or local governmental entity whose work assignments reasonably require access will be able to access this data. (M.S. 13.02, subd. 12; M. Rule 1205.0400, subp. 2.) Will law enforcement agencies be able to verify whether permits are valid? Yes. The commissioner of public safety is required to maintain an automated database of persons authorized to carry pistols under this new law that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (M.S. 624.714, subd. 15.) This database will only be available to law enforcement agencies, including prosecutors verifYing the validity of permits. Will any permit data be available to the public? Yes. On an annual basis, beginning March 1,2004, the commissioner of public safety must report to the Legislature specific data regarding permits issued under the new law. (M.S. 624.714, subd. 20.) Sheriffs and police chiefs are specifically permitted to release private data to the department of public safety for this purpose. The report will be available to the public at its actual cost of duplication. The report will not contain any personally idcntifiable data. For example, although the report will contain the number of permits applied for, issued, suspended, revoked, and denied, it will only be categorized by the age, sex, and zip code of the applicant or permit holder. (See M.S. 624.714, subd. 20 for a complete list of information required in the report. ) Does the new law increase municipal liability exposure in any way? Yes. There are a number of ways in which municipal liability exposure may be increased as a result of the new law: . Immunity. The law includes an "immunity" section, but it likely does not protect the city from all possible claims or lawsuits that may be brought as a result of the law. The immunity states that" . . . a police chief, any employee . . . of a police chief involved in the permit issuing process, is not liable for damages resulting or arising from acts with a firearm committed by a permit holder unless the person had actual knowledge at the time thc permit was issued or the instruction was given that the applicant was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm." So there is protection from claims or lawsuits where the permit holder shoots someone and the injured party tries to sue the city for the information that it gave to the county to issue the permit. This immunity does not apply if it can be shown that the city employee had actual knowledge that the applicant was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. Therefore, if the police knew that the applicant was dangerous or mentally ill and did not say anything to the sheriff after being notified, there may be potential liability. 145 University Avenue West 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 0 (651) 281-1200 0 (800) 925-1122 0 www.lmnc.org e - ~ 8 The immunity also does not specifically apply to cities. Cities would have to argue that they are immune through vicarious immunity because of the actions of their employees. Finally, the immunity does not apply to lawsuits not involving acts with a firearm such as a defamation lawsuit as discussed below. . Defamation. Under the new law (Minn. Stat. Sec. 624.714 subd. 4 (b)), after notification by the sheriff of a person's application for a permit, the local police chief may provide relevant information on the issuance of the permit. There is a potential for defamation claims by the applicant. Defamation is where you tell someone something in writing (libel) or oralIy (slander) that is proved to be false and resulted in damages to the person's reputation or in obtaining some benefit (such as a gun permit). In this situation, damages could also be argued to include physical injury if the person can show that if they had had a gun, they would not have been injured. . Injuries to third parties. If a person or a city employee carrying a gun with a permit uses the gun to hurt someone on city premises, the city could be liable for those injuries. Under common law, the city could be liable if the city kncw that the person or the employee was dangerous for other reasons. Carrying a gun legally with a permit would not give the city sufficient rcason to act on the person's ability to be on the city premises. There must have been some other action indicating danger, such as a threat or a fight. If the city had such knowledge, it had a duty to protect other users by kicking the dangerous person out of the building or premises at that time or for a period of time. If the city didn't do this, there could be potential liability for negligent supervision of the premises. There also is the argument that the dangerous action was foreseeable because of the past acts of the person. LMC recommends that you have a procedure in place for expelling people or employees who may be a danger to other users of the city premises. The procedure should afford some level of due process. . Training by city. Ifthe city provides training through a certified instructor to people who apply for permits and later use the firearm, is there liability for the city? The certified instructor individually would be immune from these types of claims and the city could argue vicarious immunity if the instructor was working in the course of his or her city employment. As stated before, the immunity doesn't apply if the instructor had actual knowledge that the person was not eligible for a permit at time of application. . Chemical testing. Under Minn. Stat. 624.7143, there is a specific procedure established for chemical testing to determine if a person is carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Is there liability if city police do not follow this procedure? Potentially, if it rcsulted in wrongful revocation of a permit or wrongful conviction. Links to Related Information: . LMC Sample Policy Prohibiting Fircarms at Work (pdf document) LMC Fact Sheet: Policc and Firc Employees & the Fair Labor Standards Act (pdf document) . (6-12-03) 145 University Avenue West 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 0 (651) 281-1200 . (800) 925-1122 . www.hnnc.org e ~ ~ ~ ~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION STATING THE CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSITION TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE 2003 MINNESOTA PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT, AND CALLING FOR AMENDMENTS TO PROHIBIT CONCEALED WEAPONS ON CITY PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed into law the "Minnesota Personal Protection Act", in which Minnesota residents, subject to qualification, shall be issued permits to carry concealed weapons, effective May 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, The act provided that permittee's shall, with very few exceptions, be permitted to carry concealed weapons on municipal property; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that owners of private properties may post and regulate the ability of permittee's to carry concealed weapons; and WHEREAS, the City Council is vitally concerned about the safety of its employees, and public safety of the users and visitors of City properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council can find no rational jurisdiction to distinguish between a permissive provision for private properties and a non-discretionary mandate for public properties; and WHERAS, there will very likely be an increase in public costs from this mandate as, for example, the greater presence of weapons on City properties may increase insurance premiums; and WHEREAS, the City Council agrees in concept with the failed amendment to the House File that would have allowed public facilities, such as City Halls, Maintenance Facilities, Parks, and Recreation Centers to prohibit concealed weapons on the premises; and WHEREAS, time is of the essence for legislators to reconsidcr and amend thc Act for the public safety of public employees and uses of public facilities, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Arden Hills, that is states its opposition to section of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act to rights to carry concealed weapons on public property, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council states its support for measures that will allow cities to post "WEAPONS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN CITY HALL OR ON ANY CITY OWNED PROPERTY". e ~ ~ ADOPTED by the Arden Hills City Council this _ day of ,2003. ATTEST: Cynthia Young, Deputy ClerklHR Director Beverly Aplikowski, MAYOR - ~ . ~ ~HILLS WORKPLACE VIOLENCE POLICY Violencc, or the threat of violence, has no place in any of the City of Arden Hills work locations. It is the goal of the City to rid worksites of violent behavior or the threat of such behavior. It is the shared obligation of all employees, law enforcement agencies, and employee organizations to individually and jointly act to prevent or defuse actual or implied violent behavior at work. Violence, or the threat of violence, by or against any employee of the City of Arden Hills or other person is unacceptable and contrary to City policy, and will subject the perpetrator to serious disciplinary action and possible criminal charges. The City will work with law enforcement to aid in the prosecution of anyone outside of the organization who commits violent acts against employees. POLICY PROHIBITING FIREARMS AND OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPONS AT WORK The City of Arden Hills hereby establishes a policy prohibiting all employees from carrying, possessing or using firearms or other dangerous weapons (including, but not limited to pistols), while acting in the course and scope of employment for the City. This policy includes all employees, including those who have a valid permit to carry a pistol. The possession, carrying or using of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by employees is prohibited while working on City property or while working in any location on behalf ofthe City. This includes, but is not limited to: · Driving on City business; · Riding as a passenger in a car or any type of mass transit on City business; · Working at City Hall or any other City-owned work site; · Working off-site on behalf of the City; · Performing emergency or on-call work after normal business hours and on weekends; · Working at private residences and at business on behalf ofthe City; · Attending training or conferences on behalf ofthe City. An exception to this policy is that City employees may carry and possess firearms (but not other dangcrous weapons) in City-owned parking areas if they have obtained the appropriate permit(s). When responding to on-call work from home after regular work hours, an employee is prohibited from bringing a firearm in their private vehicle to the work site unless the vehicle remains in a parking lot and is needed in order to respond to the call. - ~ ~ For purposes of this policy, dangerous weapons include the following: . All firearms · Bows and arrows when thc arrows are pointed tipped · All instruments used to expel at high velocity any pellets of any kind, including, but not limited to B-B guns and air rifles . Sling shots · Sand clubs · Metal knuckles · Daggers, dirks, stilettos, switch blade knife, spring blade knife, push button knife, or figures or discs with sharpened points or edges (commonly known as "throwing stars"). The City reserves the right to search and inspect property and persons while on City premises, while operating City machinery, equipment or vehicles for work-related purposes, or while engaged in City business off premises. The City encourages employees who are aware of policy violations, or who receive threats of violence while on City premises, while operating City machinery, equipment or vehicles for work- related purposes, or while engaged in City business off premises, to promptly report the violations or threats to his or her supervisor or to Human Resources. Violations of this policy are subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the City's disciplinary procedures policy, np to and including termination of employment. No employee acting in good faith, who reports real or threatened violent behavior, will be subject to retaliation or harassment based upon their report. June,2003 DRAFT Silseth, Pang ~..om: nt: 0: Subject: Silseth, Pang Friday, July 25,200310:16 AM Timesaver; Bulletin; CTV15; Focus News; Gammell, Ken; Pioneer Press; Ramsey Co. Sherriff's; Startribune Council Meeting Agenda 7/28/03 ~ ~ 7-28-03.doc (115 K8) July 28 2003 Budget Special.do... Pang Silseth Office Support Specialist City of Arden Hills Phone: 651.634.5120 Fax: 651.634.5137 Website: www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us . . Monday July 28, 2003 SPECIAL MEETING City Vision A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradition as a desirable lace in which to live, work, and la . Meeting Convenes 6:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. 2004 Preliminary Budget: Discussion and Presentation