The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016_1205_CCPacket City Council Agenda Monday, December 5, 2016 City Council Chambers (Times are Approximate – please note that items may be earlier or later than listed on the agenda) 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call Voting & Seating Order: Willmus, Etten McGehee, Laliberte and Roe 6:02 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 6:05 p.m. 3. Approve Agenda 6:07 p.m. 4. Public Comment 6:12 p.m. 5. Council and City Manager Communications, Reports and Announcements 6. Recognitions, Donations and Communications 6:17 p.m. 7. Approve Minutes a. Approve November 28 City Council Meeting Minutes b. Approve November 28 REDA Meeting Minutes 6:22 p.m. 8. Approve Consent Agenda a. Approve Payments b. Approve Business and Other Licenses c. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000 d. Consider Not Waiving Statutory Liability Limits for 2017 e. Confirm Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/Appointment Schedule f. Authorize Contract for Consultant Services to Rewrite Subdivision Code g. Consider the Issuance of a Premises Permit for Amvets Post 1 to Conduct Lawful Gambling Activities at 2480 Fairview Avenue (Lucky’s 13 restaurant) 6:32 p.m. 9. Consider Items Removed from Consent 10. General Ordinances for Adoption Council Agenda - Page 2 6:35 p.m. a. Request by City of Roseville to amend City Code Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) to revise regulations pertaining to the quantity of built improvements allowed on properties in the LDR-2 zoning district (PROJ0017) 6:45 p.m. b. Consider Changes to City Code Chapter 314.05: the 2017 Fee Schedule 7:00 p.m. c. Request to Amend City Code Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling 11. Presentations 12. Public Hearing and Action Consideration 7:10 p.m. a. Public Hearing to Consider Approving the 2017 Liquor License Renewals 13. Budget Items 7:20 p.m a. Adopt a Final 2017 Tax Levy and Budget 14. Business Items (Action Items) 7:50 p.m. a. Adopt the 2017 Final EDA Tax Levy 8:00 p.m. b. Consider Adopting the 2017 Utility Rate Adjustments 8:15 p.m. c. Approve New Positions 8:25 p.m. d. Authorize Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture for the Purpose of Deer Reduction 15. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions 8:55 p.m. a. Pet Store Licensing 9:15 p.m. b. City Facility Needs Discussion 9:30 p.m. 16. City Manager Future Agenda Review 9:35 p.m. 17. Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings 9:40 p.m. 18. Adjourn Meeting Some Upcoming Public Meetings……… All meetings at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN unless otherwise noted. Tuesday Dec 6 6:30 p.m. Parks & Recreation Commission Wednesday Dec 7 5:30 p.m. Variance Board Wednesday Dec 7 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Thursday Dec 8 6:30 p.m. Community Engagement Commission Tuesday Dec 13 6:30 p.m. Finance Commission Friday Monday Dec 23-26 City Offices Closed – Christmas Eve & Christmas Day REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/2016 Item No.: 8.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve Payments Page 1 of 1 BACKGROUND 1 State Statute requires the City Council to approve all payment of claims. The following summary of claims 2 has been submitted to the City for payment. 3 4 Check Series # Amount ACH Payments $894,074.62 83870-83939 $465,801.63 Total $1,359,876.25 5 A detailed report of the claims is attached. City Staff has reviewed the claims and considers them to be 6 appropriate for the goods and services received. 7 POLICY OBJECTIVE 8 Under Mn State Statute, all claims are required to be paid within 35 days of receipt. 9 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 10 All expenditures listed above have been funded by the current budget, from donated monies, or from cash 11 reserves. 12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 13 Staff recommends approval of all payment of claims. 14 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 15 Motion to approve the payment of claims as submitted 16 17 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director 18 Attachments: A: Checks for Approval 19 20 User: Printed:11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM Checks for Approval Accounts Payable mary.jenson Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. North Hgts Hardware Hank-CC 0 11/23/2016 Boulevard Landscaping Operating Supplies 11.77Wood Walmart-CC 0 11/23/2016 Boulevard Landscaping Operating Supplies 6.36Hefty Bowls Operating Supplies Total: 18.13 Fund Total: 18.13 Marco Technologies, LLC 83908 11/23/2016 Central Svcs Equip Revolving Rental - Office Machines 145.55Waste Toner Box Rental - Office Machines Total: 145.55 Fund Total: 145.55 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling Federal Income Tax 7.17PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 7.17 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling FICA Employee Ded. 6.88PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling FICA Employee Ded. 1.61PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 8.49 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling FICA Employers Share 6.88PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling FICA Employers Share 1.61PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 8.49 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling MN State Retirement 1.03PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 1 Attachment A Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. MN State Retirement Total: 1.03 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling PERA Employee Ded 6.66PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 6.66 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling PERA Employer Share 1.03PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling PERA Employer Share 6.66PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA Employer Share Total: 7.69 Shidell, Mair & Richardson 83928 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling Professional Services 2,517.48Reissue of Check 83748. Check Stock Had Dupe Number. Professional Services Total: 2,517.48 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Charitable Gambling State Income Tax 3.83PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 3.83 Fund Total: 2,560.84 Patrick Miller Construction 83920 11/23/2016 Community Development Building Permits 215.90Building Permit Refund-2115 Draper Building Permits Total: 215.90 Kath HVAC 83901 11/23/2016 Community Development Building Surcharge 1.00Mechanical Permit Refund-1170 Summer St. Building Surcharge Total: 1.00 Olive Garden-CC 0 11/23/2016 Community Development Conferences 103.00Lunch Conferences Total: 103.00 US Bank-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development Credit Card Fees 2,434.17September Terminal Charges Credit Card Fees Total: 2,434.17 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development Federal Income Tax 4,358.59PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 2 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Federal Income Tax Total: 4,358.59 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development FICA Employee Ded. 506.77PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development FICA Employee Ded. 2,166.73PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 2,673.50 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development FICA Employers Share 2,166.73PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development FICA Employers Share 506.77PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 2,673.50 Kath HVAC 83901 11/23/2016 Community Development Heating Permits 61.00Mechanical Permit Refund-1170 Summer St. Heating Permits Total: 61.00 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Community Development HSA Employee 250.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 250.00 ICMA Retirement Trust 457-300227 0 11/23/2016 Community Development ICMA Def Comp 1,717.96PR Batch 00002.11.2016 ICMA Deferred Compensation ICMA Def Comp Total: 1,717.96 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Community Development Medical Ins Employee 487.72Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 487.72 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Community Development Medical Ins Employer 4,042.25Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 4,042.25 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development MN State Retirement 317.61PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 317.61 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development MNDCP Def Comp 450.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 450.00 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 3 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development PERA Employee Ded 2,272.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 2,272.84 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development PERA Employer Share 349.67PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development PERA Employer Share 2,272.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA Employer Share Total: 2,622.51 FormSite.com-CC 0 11/23/2016 Community Development Professional Services 49.95Rental Registration ZedIT Solutions Inc, 83939 11/23/2016 Community Development Professional Services 1,736.00Accela Implementation ZedIT Solutions Inc, 83939 11/23/2016 Community Development Professional Services 1,736.00Accela Implementation Professional Services Total: 3,521.95 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Community Development State Income Tax 1,691.32PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 1,691.32 Fund Total: 29,894.82 Trisha Stefanski 83929 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs Deposits 3,000.00Escrow Return-1204 Brooks Ave Deposits Total: 3,000.00 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs Federal Income Tax 584.94PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 584.94 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs FICA Employee Ded. 361.49PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs FICA Employee Ded. 84.54PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 446.03 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs FICA Employers Share 361.49PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs FICA Employers Share 84.54PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 446.03 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs HSA Employee 115.38PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 4 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. HSA Employee Total: 115.38 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs Medical Ins Employee 38.24Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 38.24 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs Medical Ins Employer 1,134.12Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 1,134.12 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs MN State Retirement 59.39PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 59.39 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs MNDCP Def Comp 100.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 100.00 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs PERA Employee Ded 385.99PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 385.99 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs PERA Employer Share 385.99PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs PERA Employer Share 59.39PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 445.38 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Contracted Engineering Svcs State Income Tax 260.31PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 260.31 Fund Total: 7,015.81 Brickyard Grill-CC 0 11/23/2016 East Metro SWAT Training 38.47Training Expenses Main Gate Grill-CC 0 11/23/2016 East Metro SWAT Training 221.25Training Expenses Reimbursement Main Gate Grill-CC 0 11/23/2016 East Metro SWAT Training 18.50Training Expenses Reimbursement Ripley 1 Stop-CC 0 11/23/2016 East Metro SWAT Training 15.00Training Expenses Reimbursement AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 5 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Training Total: 293.22 Fund Total: 293.22 0 11/23/2016 General Fund 211402 - Flex Spending Health 26.36Flexible Benefit Reimbursement 0 11/23/2016 General Fund 211402 - Flex Spending Health 287.45Flexible Benefit Reimbursement 211402 - Flex Spending Health Total: 313.81 0 11/23/2016 General Fund 211403 - Flex Spend Day Care 375.00Dependent Care Reimbursement 0 11/23/2016 General Fund 211403 - Flex Spend Day Care 386.79Dependent Care Reimburssement 211403 - Flex Spend Day Care Total: 761.79 Li Li 83906 11/23/2016 General Fund Business Licenses 75.00Massage License Fee Refund Business Licenses Total: 75.00 Schuler Shoes-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Clothing 229.95CSO Uniform Supplies Clothing Total: 229.95 Arrowwood Resort-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 370.83MN Finance Conference Lodging-Miller Arrowwood Resort-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 1,112.58MN Finance Conference Lodging-Schirmacher, Weix, Coyle BCA-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 60.00Investigators Conference Burger King-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 6.28Conference Meal Dairy Queen-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 7.28Conference Meal d'Bronx-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 9.51Conference Meal Delta Air-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 50.00Baggage Fees Grand View Lodge Nisswa-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 452.02Conference Lodging Parking Ramp-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 106.00Conference Parking Spin Pizza-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 14.19Conference Meal SuperShuttle-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Conferences 43.20Conference Shuttle Conferences Total: 2,231.89 Menards-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Contract Maint. - City Hall 64.66Paint S.O.S. Drain & Sewer Cleaning 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Contract Maint. - City Hall 343.75High Pressure Water Jetting AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 6 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Contract Maint. - City Hall Total: 408.41 Nitti Sanitation-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Contract Maint. - City Garage 339.66Regular Service Contract Maint. - City Garage Total: 339.66 Adam's Pest Control Inc 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Contract Maintenance 100.00Quarterly Service MAVA-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Contract Maintenance 72.00MN Volunteers Association Dues Nitti Sanitation-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Contract Maintenance 100.98Regular Service Volgistics-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Contract Maintenance 510.00Volunteer Tracking Software Contract Maintenance Total: 782.98 Embedded Systems, Inc. 83891 11/23/2016 General Fund Contract Maintnenace 125.00Tornado Siren Repair Embedded Systems, Inc. 83891 11/23/2016 General Fund Contract Maintnenace 125.00Tornado Siren Repair Contract Maintnenace Total: 250.00 Byerly's- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Employee Recognition 40.99Sheet Cake Michaels-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Employee Recognition 53.46Frames UPS Store- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Employee Recognition 26.07Mailing Supplies Employee Recognition Total: 120.52 Employtest-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Employee Recruit & Re-Location 100.00Employee Testing Employee Recruit & Re-Location Total: 100.00 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 General Fund Employer Insurance 974.30Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 General Fund Employer Insurance 736.42Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Employer Insurance Total: 1,710.72 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Federal Income Tax 35,757.31PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 35,757.31 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund FICA Employee Ded. 4,342.85PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund FICA Employee Ded. 6,129.71PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 7 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. FICA Employee Ded. Total: 10,472.56 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund FICA Employers Share 4,342.85PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund FICA Employers Share 6,129.71PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 10,472.56 MN Child Support Payment Cntr 83914 11/23/2016 General Fund Financial Support 354.43Remittance ID: 0015005038 Financial Support Total: 354.43 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 General Fund HSA Employee 2,698.35PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 2,698.35 ICMA Retirement Trust 457-300227 0 11/23/2016 General Fund ICMA Def Comp 1,972.54PR Batch 00002.11.2016 ICMA Deferred Compensation ICMA Def Comp Total: 1,972.54 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 General Fund Medical Ins Employee 6,377.99Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 General Fund Medical Ins Employee 9,148.52Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 15,526.51 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 General Fund Medical Ins Employer 46,108.94Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 46,108.94 MN Fire Svc Cert Board-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Memberships & Subscriptions 1,550.00Bulk Certification Memberships & Subscriptions Total: 1,550.00 MN Benefit Association 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Minnesota Benefit Ded 79.58PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Minnesota Benefit Minnesota Benefit Ded Total: 79.58 D'Amico & Sons-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Miscellaneous 16.17Lunch Meeting St. Paul Stamp Works-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Miscellaneous 47.62Notary Stamp AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 8 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Miscellaneous Total: 63.79 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund MN State Retirement 3,012.86PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 3,012.86 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund MNDCP Def Comp 7,263.10PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 7,263.10 Ripley 1 Stop-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Motor Fuel 49.65Gasoline Motor Fuel Total: 49.65 Innovative Office Solutions-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Office Supplies 70.19Office Supplies Vista Print-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Office Supplies 157.43Office Supplies Zerbee-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Office Supplies 87.33Office Supplies Office Supplies Total: 314.95 Ferguson Enterprises Inc.-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Op Supplies - City Hall 339.84Meter Supplies Suburban Ace Hardware 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Op Supplies - City Hall 15.98Lube, Glue Op Supplies - City Hall Total: 355.82 Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 71.87Lavalier Microphone Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 79.58Station Supplies Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 100.32Station Supplies Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 78.92Station Supplies Blick Art Materials-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 71.75Foamboard, Spray Adhesive Bon Ton, Inc-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 1,501.94Fraud. Reimbursed on Next Statement Caribou Coffee- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 29.97Coffee With A Cop Caribou Coffee- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 16.99Coffee With A Cop Cintas Corporation #470 83880 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 24.94Uniform Cleaning Commercial Asphalt Co 83884 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 2,375.25Dura Drive Costco-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 194.15Station Supplies Diamond Vogel Paints-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 105.05Paint Supplies Dollar Tree-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 20.35Station Supplies EMP-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 42.40Rescue Shoulder Strap EMP-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 179.90Glucose Test Strips Evident Inc-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 269.97Property Room Supplies AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 9 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Home Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 89.39Knee Pads, Tool Tote Home Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 71.20Paint, Tools Home Depot- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 149.00Drill IKECA-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 42.00Grease Gauge Mac Tools-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 159.99Tools MIDC Enterprises- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 11.25Pipe Elbow Mikes LP Gas, Inc-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 46.01Supplies NAPA Auto Parts-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 28.05Operation Supplies Northwest Lasers and Instruments, Inc. 83917 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 240.00Water Flags Office Depot- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 6.83Office Supplies Parking Ramp-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 9.00Parking Sherwin Williams - CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 21.59Paint Supplies St. Croix Cleaners-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 205.57Cleaning Service Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 60.00Chain Sharpening Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 74.99Extension Cord Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 18.98Mounting Tape, Stamp Set Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 44.33PVC Pipe, Tape Survey Monkey.com-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 26.00Monthly Subscription Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 3.31Command Strip Uline-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 97.01Property Room Supplies Walmart-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 69.70Apt. Manager Training Refreshments. No Receipt-Yunke Walmart-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 44.91Lemonade Stand Supplies Walmart-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 21.41No Receipt-Angell Zerbee-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Operating Supplies 139.21Paper Cups Operating Supplies Total: 6,843.08 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund PERA Employee Ded 13,072.38PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund PERA Employee Ded 28,133.66PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 41,206.04 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund PERA Employer Share 963.86PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund PERA Employer Share 39,034.02PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA Employer Share Total: 39,997.88 NCPERS Life Ins#725800 0 11/23/2016 General Fund PERA Life Ins. Ded. 32.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 PERA Life PERA Life Ins. Ded. Total: 32.00 Collins Brothers-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Professional Services 325.00No Receipt-J. Adams AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 10 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Fed Ex Kinko's-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Professional Services 15.60Shipping Cost Intoximeters- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Professional Services 153.00Intoximeter Repair Sheila Stowell 83930 11/23/2016 General Fund Professional Services 400.00City Council Meeting Minutes Sheila Stowell 83930 11/23/2016 General Fund Professional Services 4.70Mileage Reimbursement Professional Services Total: 898.30 Peak Staffing, Inc. 83921 11/23/2016 General Fund Salaries - Regular 720.00Temporary Employment Salaries - Regular Total: 720.00 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 General Fund State Income Tax 13,782.54PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 13,782.54 Sprint- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Telephone 54.25Cell Phones Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Telephone 21.99Surge Protector Telephone Total: 76.24 American Fire Sprinkler-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 300.00Training Best Western- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Training 264.38Lodging During Training Blue Line Travel Center-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 15.23Lunch During Training BP Oil-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 24.41Gasoline Budget Rent-a-Car -CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Training 165.83Rental Car During Training Chick Fil A-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 10.54Conference Meal Cub Foods- CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Training 26.99Sheet Cake MN Chiefs of Police-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Training 90.00Leadership Development Training Office Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 64.26Office Supplies Phillips 66-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 7.85Fuel Ramada Inn-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 279.00Training Lodging Shack BBQ-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 20.55Conference Meal Springsted-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Training 150.00Symposium Taco Villa-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Training 15.63Conference Meal Training Total: 1,434.67 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Utilities 75.87Civil Defense Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Utilities 1,750.87Civil Defense Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Utilities 12,861.38Street Lights AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 11 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Utilities Total: 14,688.12 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Utilities - City Garage 2,270.41Garage/PW Building Utilities - City Garage Total: 2,270.41 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Utilities - City Hall 5,854.27City Hall Building Utilities - City Hall Total: 5,854.27 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Utilities - Old City Hall 331.10Fire Station Utilities - Old City Hall Total: 331.10 Cintas Corporation #470 83880 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 79.00Uniform Cleaning Factory Motor Parts, Co. 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 173.80Vehicle Supplies John Deere Financial 83900 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 465.01Parts Krain Creek Fabrication, Inc. 83902 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 3,319.85Vehicle Supplies Liberty Tire Services, LLC 83907 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 164.41Tire Recycling Liftgate Parts-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 108.57Torsion Spring Mac Tools-CC 0 11/30/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 15.74Scraper MacQueen Equipment 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 33.31Fuel Cap R & B Supply-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 161.15Tools Roseville Chrysler Jeep Dodge 83925 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 209.76Vehicle Supplies Roseville Chrysler Jeep Dodge 83925 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 40.96Vehicle Supplies Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 17.97Spray Paint Tri State Bobcat, Inc 83933 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 63.95Latch Kit, Coolant Tri State Bobcat, Inc 83933 11/23/2016 General Fund Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 43.89Boot Plung Kit Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance Total: 4,897.37 Fund Total: 276,409.70 Flying Pig Grooming-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Donations K-9 - Supplies 1,678.99Stainless Steel Grooming Tub Whistle-CC 0 11/23/2016 General Fund Donations K-9 - Supplies 9.95K9 Supplies K-9 - Supplies Total: 1,688.94 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 12 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Fund Total: 1,688.94 Nitti Sanitation-CC 0 11/30/2016 Golf Course Contract Maintenance 79.56Regular Service On Site Sanitation, Inc. 83919 11/23/2016 Golf Course Contract Maintenance 50.00Toilet Rental Contract Maintenance Total: 129.56 US Bank-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Credit Card Fees 664.46September Terminal Charges Credit Card Fees Total: 664.46 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Federal Income Tax 598.94PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 598.94 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course FICA Employee Ded. 92.01PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course FICA Employee Ded. 393.41PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 485.42 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course FICA Employers Share 92.01PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course FICA Employers Share 393.41PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 485.42 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Golf Course Medical Ins Employee 519.84Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 519.84 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Golf Course Medical Ins Employer 1,374.12Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 1,374.12 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course MN State Retirement 52.40PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 52.40 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course MNDCP Def Comp 50.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 13 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. MNDCP Def Comp Total: 50.00 All Seasons Rental- CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 193.37Shelter Cement Bearings-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 286.07No Receipt-Bartholomew Beisswenger's Hardware-CC 0 11/30/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 21.42Weed Control Supplies Cub Foods- CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 142.69Golftoberfest Food Cub Foods- CC 0 11/30/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 19.92Buns, Trash Bags Fastenal-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 39.98Bolts Gary Carlson Equip-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 65.00Shelter Supplies Grundhofers Meats-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 69.56Golftoberfest Food Home Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 153.71Golf Course Supplies Home Depot- CC 0 11/30/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 29.00Mouse Control Joe Sensers-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 25.00Golftoberfest Gift Card Mudslingers-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 25.00Golftoberfest Prize Office Depot- CC 0 11/30/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 272.08Printer Ink Party City-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 61.19Golftoberfest Decor Party City-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 92.17Golftoberfest Supplies Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 1.50Bolts Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/30/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 43.97Mouse Traps, Batteries Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 58.90Concession Supplies Total Wine-CC 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Operating Supplies 100.00Golftoberfest Prize Operating Supplies Total: 1,700.53 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course PERA Employee Ded 340.60PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 340.60 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course PERA Employer Share 52.40PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course PERA Employer Share 340.60PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA Employer Share Total: 393.00 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course State Income Tax 284.70PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 284.70 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Use Tax Payable -33.72Golf Course-Sales/Use Tax Use Tax Payable Total: -33.72 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 14 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 Golf Course Utilities 524.10Golf Course Utilities Total: 524.10 Fund Total: 7,569.37 Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 83889 11/23/2016 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Professional Services 1,935.00Acquisition Consulting Service Professional Services Total: 1,935.00 Fund Total: 1,935.00 Data Q Internet Equip. Corp. 83887 11/23/2016 Information Technology Computer Equipment 2,150.00Computer Supplies Data Q Internet Equip. Corp. 83887 11/23/2016 Information Technology Computer Equipment 3,105.00Computer Supplies Data Q Internet Equip. Corp. 83887 11/23/2016 Information Technology Computer Equipment 1,065.00Computer Supplies Computer Equipment Total: 6,320.00 CleverBridge-CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 2,827.03Gold Software Maintenance HP Direct-CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 130.40SAN Monthly Maintenance HP Direct-CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 246.40Monthly Support Contract Charge McAfee, Inc-CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 880.00Monthly Spam Filtering Service Microsoft-CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 334.66Online Licenses Network Solutions- CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 219.47Domain Registration-EMPSTF.Org Network Solutions- CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 352.34Domain Registration-EMPSTF.Org Network Solutions- CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance -219.47Credit SHI International Corp 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 188.00Software Licenses Solarwinds-CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Contract Maintenance 682.00Monthly Maintenance Contract Maintenance Total: 5,640.83 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Federal Income Tax 6,468.47PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 6,468.47 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology FICA Employee Ded. 3,315.25PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology FICA Employee Ded. 775.31PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 15 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. FICA Employee Ded. Total: 4,090.56 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology FICA Employers Share 775.31PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology FICA Employers Share 3,315.25PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 4,090.56 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Information Technology HSA Employee 455.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 455.84 ICMA Retirement Trust 457-300227 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology ICMA Def Comp 225.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 ICMA Deferred Compensation ICMA Def Comp Total: 225.00 City of North St. Paul 83881 11/23/2016 Information Technology Internet 600.00Data Center Interconnects City of North St. Paul 83881 11/23/2016 Information Technology Internet 4,845.00Billing Interconnects Internet Total: 5,445.00 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Information Technology Medical Ins Employee 1,279.22Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 1,279.22 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Information Technology Medical Ins Employer 10,538.25Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 10,538.25 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology MN State Retirement 548.45PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 548.45 Amazon.com- CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Operating Supplies 29.98Laptop Cables Amazon.com- CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Operating Supplies 16.28Battery Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Operating Supplies 59.97Wireless Headset Monoprice.Com-CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Operating Supplies 52.18HDMI to VGA Kit for Notebooks Operating Supplies Total: 158.41 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology PERA Employee Ded 3,564.74PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 16 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. PERA Employee Ded Total: 3,564.74 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology PERA Employer Share 3,564.74PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology PERA Employer Share 548.45PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 4,113.19 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology State Income Tax 2,371.60PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 2,371.60 Sprint- CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Telephone 26.00Cell Phones Telephone Total: 26.00 Event Group-CC 0 11/30/2016 Information Technology Training 1,954.80Cyber Security Summit Vue IT Certification-CC 0 11/23/2016 Information Technology Training 165.00MCP Test Training Total: 2,119.80 Fund Total: 57,455.92 Brite-Way Window Cleaning Sv 83876 11/23/2016 License Center Conferences 29.00License Center Window Cleaning Conferences Total: 29.00 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center Federal Income Tax 3,351.57PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 3,351.57 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center FICA Employee Ded. 2,134.16PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center FICA Employee Ded. 499.11PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 2,633.27 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center FICA Employers Share 499.11PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center FICA Employers Share 2,134.16PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 17 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. FICA Employers Share Total: 2,633.27 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 License Center HSA Employee 213.06PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 213.06 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 License Center Medical Ins Employee 1,704.30Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 1,704.30 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 License Center Medical Ins Employer 6,974.25Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 6,974.25 Ramsey County Public Health 83924 11/23/2016 License Center Memberships & Subscriptions 20.00Notary Renewal-Bazac Ramsey County Public Health 83924 11/23/2016 License Center Memberships & Subscriptions 20.00Notary Renewal-Theisen Washington County 83936 11/23/2016 License Center Memberships & Subscriptions 20.00Notary-Koeckeritz Memberships & Subscriptions Total: 60.00 Mydriversmanuals-CC 0 11/23/2016 License Center Merchandise for Sale 267.01Drivers Manuals for Resale Merchandise for Sale Total: 267.01 MN Benefit Association 0 11/23/2016 License Center Minnesota Benefit Ded 123.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Minnesota Benefit Minnesota Benefit Ded Total: 123.84 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center MN State Retirement 349.11PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 349.11 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center MNDCP Def Comp 550.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center MNDCP Def Comp 519.43PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deffered Compensation % MNDCP Def Comp Total: 1,069.43 Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 License Center Office Supplies 16.62Office Supplies AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 18 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Office Supplies Total: 16.62 Pakor-CC 0 11/23/2016 License Center Operating Supplies 279.58Passport Supplies Pakor-CC 0 11/30/2016 License Center Operating Supplies 279.50Passport Paper Staples-CC 0 11/23/2016 License Center Operating Supplies 29.50Paper Shredder Operating Supplies Total: 588.58 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center PERA Employee Ded 2,119.04PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 2,119.04 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center PERA Employer Share 2,119.04PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center PERA Employer Share 325.99PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 2,445.03 USPS-CC 0 11/23/2016 License Center Postage 270.90Postage USPS-CC 0 11/30/2016 License Center Postage 335.40Postage Postage Total: 606.30 Quicksilver Express Courier 0 11/23/2016 License Center Professional Services 184.94Courier Service Professional Services Total: 184.94 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 License Center State Income Tax 1,428.49PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 1,428.49 Parking Ramp-CC 0 11/23/2016 License Center Transportation 14.00Conference Parking Transportation Total: 14.00 Fund Total: 26,811.11 Cintas Corporation #470 83880 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Clothing 1.22Uniform Cleaning Cintas Corporation #470 83880 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Clothing 1.22Uniform Cleaning Cintas Corporation #470 83880 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Clothing 1.22Uniform Cleaning AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 19 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Clothing Total: 3.66 Nitti Sanitation-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Contract Maintenance 661.64Regular Service Contract Maintenance Total: 661.64 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Federal Income Tax 2,303.85PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 2,303.85 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance FICA Employee Ded. 292.60PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance FICA Employee Ded. 1,251.12PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 1,543.72 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance FICA Employers Share 292.60PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance FICA Employers Share 1,251.12PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 1,543.72 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance HSA Employee 384.62PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 384.62 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Medical Ins Employee 496.47Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 496.47 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Medical Ins Employer 4,789.60Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 4,789.60 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance MN State Retirement 205.73PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 205.73 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance MNDCP Def Comp 405.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 405.00 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 20 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Fastenal-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 9.02Wrap Glasses Fastenal-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 78.40Supplies Gary Carlson Equip-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 29.84Yellow Safety Tape Hirshfields-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 40.07Arboretum Supplies Lowes-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 144.90Arboretum Supplies Menards-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 151.95Retaining Wall Supplies Menards-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 44.86Filters Menards-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 156.50Arboretum Supplies North Hgts Hardware Hank-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 10.98Arboretum Supplies North Hgts Hardware Hank-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 53.56Drain Snake North Hgts Hardware Hank-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 28.44Graffitti Removal North Hgts Hardware Hank-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 46.05Antifreeze Now & Later-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 21.41Gas for Grill Oakdale Rental Center 83918 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 194.00Concrete O'Reilly Automotive- CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 32.27Bit Sets Party City-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 106.37Volunteer Dinner Supplies Sherwin Williams - CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 125.90Paint Supplies Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 10.48Cabinet Hardware Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 14.98Clasps Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 10.70Batteries Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 32.45Shop Supplies Trio Supply Company 83934 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 327.75Restroom Supplies Vac That Thing Up-CC 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 17.98Arboretum Supplies Vacker Inc. 83935 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Operating Supplies 347.00Seed Garden Pedestal Operating Supplies Total: 2,035.86 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance PERA Employee Ded 1,337.40PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 1,337.40 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance PERA Employer Share 205.73PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance PERA Employer Share 1,337.40PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA Employer Share Total: 1,543.13 McCaren Designs, Inc. 83909 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Professional Services 457.65Exterior Landscape Maintenance Mn Dept of Agriculture 83915 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Professional Services 25.00Tree Care Registry Renewal Professional Services Total: 482.65 On Site Sanitation, Inc. 83919 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Rental 276.79Toilet Rental AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 21 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Rental Total: 276.79 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance State Income Tax 920.31PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 920.31 Sprint- CC 0 11/30/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Telephone 26.00Cell Phones Telephone Total: 26.00 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 P & R Contract Mantenance Utilities 2,947.34P&R Utilities Total: 2,947.34 Fund Total: 21,907.49 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 0 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Capital Outlay 399.00Park Renewal Program Capital Outlay Total: 399.00 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 0 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Contractor Payments 2,619.97Park Renewal Program Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 0 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Contractor Payments 196.81Park Renewal Program Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 0 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Contractor Payments 202.35Park Renewal Program Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 0 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Contractor Payments 225.90Park Renewal Program Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 0 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Contractor Payments 336.02Park Renewal Program Contractor Payments Total: 3,581.05 LHB Inc 0 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Professional Services 292.50Parks Renewal Landscape Architecht Ramsey County Prop Rec & Rev 83923 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Professional Services 676.08Real Estate Tax PIN: 16.29.23.22.0068 Ramsey County Prop Rec & Rev 83923 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Professional Services 579.96Real Estate Tax PIN: 16.29.23.22.0069 Ramsey County Prop Rec & Rev 83923 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Professional Services 137.16Real Estate Tax PIN: 13.29.23.24.0025 Terracon Consultants, Inc. 83931 11/23/2016 Park Renewal 2011 Professional Services 837.80Project Manager, Field Scientist Service Professional Services Total: 2,523.50 Fund Total: 6,503.55 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 22 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Alta Falls & Pond Supplies 83871 11/23/2016 Pathway Maintenance Fund Operating Supplies 1,869.96Cypress, Redwood Rubber Chips, Binders Brock White -CC 0 11/23/2016 Pathway Maintenance Fund Operating Supplies 35.90Supplies Fra-Dor Inc. 83893 11/23/2016 Pathway Maintenance Fund Operating Supplies 790.00Received Loads Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 Pathway Maintenance Fund Operating Supplies 39.63Tank Sprayer Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 Pathway Maintenance Fund Operating Supplies 9.99Paint Thinner Operating Supplies Total: 2,745.48 Fund Total: 2,745.48 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants Federal Income Tax 95.38PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 95.38 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants FICA Employee Ded. 10.03PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 10.03 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants FICA Employers Share 10.03PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 10.03 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Police Grants HSA Employee 3.44PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 3.44 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Police Grants Medical Ins Employer 74.17Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 74.17 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants MN State Retirement 7.02PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 7.02 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants MNDCP Def Comp 12.39PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 12.39 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants PERA Employee Ded 75.82PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 23 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. PERA Employee Ded Total: 75.82 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants PERA Employer Share 113.73PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA Employer Share Total: 113.73 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Police Grants State Income Tax 33.31PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 33.31 Fund Total: 435.32 E&T Plastics 83888 11/23/2016 Recreation Donations Operating Supplies 160.00Clear Polycarbonate My Whiteboards.com-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Donations Operating Supplies 748.75Locker Room White Boards Operating Supplies Total: 908.75 Fund Total: 908.75 Rebecca Galkiewicz 83894 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Collected Insurance Fee 10.00Park Building Refund Collected Insurance Fee Total: 10.00 Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. 83885 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Contract Maintenance 9,268.00Oval Brine System Repairs Nitti Sanitation-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Contract Maintenance 247.86Regular Service Printers Service Inc 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Contract Maintenance 60.00Ice Knife Sharpening Contract Maintenance Total: 9,575.86 US Bank-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Credit Card Fees 140.91September Terminal Charges Credit Card Fees Total: 140.91 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Federal Income Tax 4,752.47PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 4,752.47 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 24 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Rebecca Galkiewicz 83894 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Fee Program Revenue 144.69Park Building Refund Fee Program Revenue Total: 144.69 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund FICA Employee Ded. 815.86PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund FICA Employee Ded. 3,488.44PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 4,304.30 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund FICA Employers Share 3,488.44PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund FICA Employers Share 815.86PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 4,304.30 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Financial Support 600.29PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MN DOR Wage Levy Financial Support Total: 600.29 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund HSA Employee 200.39PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 200.39 ICMA Retirement Trust 457-300227 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund ICMA Def Comp 550.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 ICMA Deferred Compensation ICMA Def Comp Total: 550.00 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Medical Ins Employee 1,157.26Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 1,157.26 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Medical Ins Employer 7,596.63Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 7,596.63 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund MN State Retirement 403.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 403.84 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund MNDCP Def Comp 1,308.41PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 25 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. MNDCP Def Comp Total: 1,308.41 Office Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Office Supplies 92.04Office Supplies Office Supplies Total: 92.04 AIA Services, LLC 83870 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 697.75T-Shirts AIA Services, LLC 83870 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 247.50T-Shirts Amazon.com- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 18.49Computer Cord Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 10.95Microphone Windscreens Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 3,209.84iPads, Register Drawers Amazon.com- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 194.97Printer Brock White Co 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 295.68Poly Foam Byerly's- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 12.67HANC Supplies Byerly's- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 49.85Volunteer Dinner Supplies Crown Plastics, Inc 83886 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 137.70Acrylic Sheet Cub Foods- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 40.66HANC Supplies Cub Foods- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies -18.04HANC Supplies Cub Foods- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 21.05HANC Supplies Cub Foods- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 13.47Ice Cubes Cub Foods- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 44.90Ice Cubes Fed Ex Kinko's-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 44.42Poster Lamination Fire Mountain Beads-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 91.10Tool Magnifying Boxes Flow System-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 178.11Water Miser Safety Vent Cap Gertens Greenhouses-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 23.55HANC Supplies Goodwill-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 7.64Halloween Supplies Hanks Specialties-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 62.43Paint Supplies Hawk Performance Specialties, LLC 83895 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 2,280.00Lumin Ice Pro Hermel Foodservice 83896 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 902.43Concession Supplies Hermel Foodservice 83896 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 10.00Coffee Bowl Hermel Foodservice 83896 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies -39.86Concession Supplies-Credit Hobby Lobby-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 56.21Craft Supplies Hobby Lobby-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies -18.83Craft Supplies Hudson Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 16.16Hooks Macones Chocolate-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 95.00Volunteer Dinner Supplies Office Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 25.47Office Supplies Office Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 17.14Craft Supplies OTC Brands-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 314.63Halloween Supplies Party City-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 30.97WRF Decorations Party City-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 25.62Halloween Supplies Party City-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 32.03Halloween Supplies Petco-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 38.48Animal Food AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 26 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. PetSmart-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 66.70Animal Food Restaurant Depot- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 227.95No Receipt-Elm S & S Worldwide-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 396.94Program Supplies Seller Mike-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 29.23Skate Sharpener Switch Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 11.31Hasp, Fasteners SupplyHouse.com-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 23.90Floor Drain Gate Target- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 3.27AARP Driving Class Supplies Target- CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 6.88Gym Supplies Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 77.28Storage Supplies Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 17.81Program Supplies Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies -7.49Credit Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 17.12Dance Supplies Target- CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 21.35Dance Supplies Uline-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 421.61Recycling Supplies Walgreens-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 19.26Halloween Supplies Walmart-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 87.03Dance Recital Supplies Walmart-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 44.36Cleaning Supplies Walmart-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 83.41Dance Recital Supplies Walmart-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 76.01Summer Spec. Supplies Walmart-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 188.72Dance Supplies When I Work-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Operating Supplies 49.00Monthly Fee Operating Supplies Total: 11,031.79 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund PERA Employee Ded 3,123.57PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 3,123.57 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund PERA Employer Share 480.59PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund PERA Employer Share 3,123.57PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA Employer Share Total: 3,604.16 Craigslist-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Professional Services 35.00Gymnastics Job Ad Employtest-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Professional Services 100.00Employee Testing Metro Volleyball Officials 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Professional Services 1,311.00Volleyball Officiating Midtown Global Market-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Professional Services 50.00Summer Field Trip MN Transportation Museum-CC 0 11/30/2016 Recreation Fund Professional Services 754.00Adult Trip The Cleaning Authority 83932 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Professional Services 3,855.60Cleaning Service Professional Services Total: 6,105.60 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 27 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. MN State Fair-CC 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Rental 1,836.00Skate Park Storage On Site Sanitation, Inc. 83919 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Rental 223.93Toilet Rental Rental Total: 2,059.93 Rebecca Galkiewicz 83894 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Sales Tax Payable 10.31Park Building Refund Sales Tax Payable Total: 10.31 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund State Income Tax 1,964.97PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 1,964.97 Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. 83885 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Training 590.00Hazwoper Refresher Course Training Total: 590.00 Comcast 83883 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Utilities 240.06Business Services Comcast 83883 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Utilities 235.06Business Services Comcast 83883 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Utilities 252.77Business Service Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Utilities 563.07New Park Buildings Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Utilities 469.12Nature Center Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 Recreation Fund Utilities 13,491.51Skating Center Utilities Total: 15,251.59 Fund Total: 78,883.31 Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 0 11/23/2016 Risk Management Employer Insurance 5,194.46Dental Insurance Premium Employer Insurance Total: 5,194.46 CNA Surety Direct Bill 83882 11/23/2016 Risk Management Insurance 100.00City Manager Performance Bond Insurance Total: 100.00 SFM 83927 11/23/2016 Risk Management Parks & Recreation Claims 8.86Work Comp. Administration-Reissue of Check 83747 Parks & Recreation Claims Total: 8.86 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 28 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. League of MN Cities Ins Trust 83904 11/23/2016 Risk Management Police Patrol Claims 1,982.54LMCIT Claim: 21081 SFM 83927 11/23/2016 Risk Management Police Patrol Claims 716.99Work Comp. Administration-Reissue of Check 83747 SFM 83927 11/23/2016 Risk Management Police Patrol Claims 365.50Work Comp. Administration-Reissue of Check 83747 Police Patrol Claims Total: 3,065.03 SFM 83927 11/23/2016 Risk Management Professional Services 30.00Work Comp. Administration-Reissue of Check 83747 Professional Services Total: 30.00 SFM 83927 11/23/2016 Risk Management Public Works Admin. Claims 18.73Work Comp. Administration-Reissue of Check 83747 SFM 83927 11/23/2016 Risk Management Public Works Admin. Claims 178.00Work Comp. Administration-Reissue of Check 83747 Public Works Admin. Claims Total: 196.73 Fund Total: 8,595.08 Insituform Technologies USA, Inc 83897 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Contractor Payments 47,473.85Sewer Lining Contractor Payments Total: 47,473.85 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Federal Income Tax 1,251.47PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 1,251.47 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer FICA Employee Ded. 793.21PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer FICA Employee Ded. 185.52PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 978.73 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer FICA Employers Share 793.21PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer FICA Employers Share 185.52PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 978.73 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer HSA Employee 47.13PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 47.13 ICMA Retirement Trust 457-300227 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer ICMA Def Comp 26.25PR Batch 00002.11.2016 ICMA Deferred Compensation AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 29 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. ICMA Def Comp Total: 26.25 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Medical Ins Employee 1,021.82Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 1,021.82 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Medical Ins Employer 2,707.09Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 2,707.09 Metropolitan Council 83911 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Metro Waste Control Board 222,011.54Waste Water Service Metro Waste Control Board Total: 222,011.54 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer MN State Retirement 133.04PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 133.04 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer MNDCP Def Comp 86.24PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 86.24 Menards-CC 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Operating Supplies 6.14Cleaning Supplies Menards-CC 0 11/30/2016 Sanitary Sewer Operating Supplies 84.38Paint Supplies Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Operating Supplies 8.99Hook Tool Suburban Ace Hardware-CC 0 11/30/2016 Sanitary Sewer Operating Supplies 17.98Silicone, Putty Knife Viking Industrial Center-CC 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Operating Supplies 322.74Hip Boots Operating Supplies Total: 440.23 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer PERA Employee Ded 864.74PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 864.74 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer PERA Employer Share 864.74PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer PERA Employer Share 133.04PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 997.78 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer State Income Tax 537.54PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 30 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. State Income Tax Total: 537.54 Sprint- CC 0 11/30/2016 Sanitary Sewer Telephone 52.00Cell Phones Telephone Total: 52.00 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Utilities 870.87Lift Stations Utilities Total: 870.87 Bolton & Menk, Inc. 83873 11/23/2016 Sanitary Sewer Wagner Lift Station 190.00Wagner Sanitary Sewer Lift Wagner Lift Station Total: 190.00 Fund Total: 280,669.05 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle Federal Income Tax 108.82PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 108.82 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle FICA Employee Ded. 59.15PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle FICA Employee Ded. 13.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 72.99 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle FICA Employers Share 59.15PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle FICA Employers Share 13.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 72.99 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle MN State Retirement 8.99PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 8.99 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle PERA Employee Ded 58.45PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 58.45 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 31 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle PERA Employer Share 58.45PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle PERA Employer Share 8.99PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 67.44 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Solid Waste Recycle State Income Tax 48.95PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 48.95 Fund Total: 438.63 Minnesota Utilities & Excavating 83913 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage Contractor Payments 1,712.00Rain Garden Dig Contractor Payments Total: 1,712.00 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage Federal Income Tax 1,093.21PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 1,093.21 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage FICA Employee Ded. 147.48PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage FICA Employee Ded. 630.61PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 778.09 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage FICA Employers Share 147.48PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage FICA Employers Share 630.61PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 778.09 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage HSA Employee 53.84PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 53.84 ICMA Retirement Trust 457-300227 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage ICMA Def Comp 52.50PR Batch 00002.11.2016 ICMA Deferred Compensation ICMA Def Comp Total: 52.50 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage Medical Ins Employee 227.17Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 32 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Medical Ins Employee Total: 227.17 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage Medical Ins Employer 1,599.15Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 1,599.15 MN Benefit Association 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage Minnesota Benefit Ded 42.86PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Minnesota Benefit Minnesota Benefit Ded Total: 42.86 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage MN State Retirement 100.11PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 100.11 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage MNDCP Def Comp 63.51PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 63.51 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage PERA Employee Ded 650.67PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 650.67 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage PERA Employer Share 650.67PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage PERA Employer Share 100.11PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 750.78 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Storm Drainage State Income Tax 446.18PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 446.18 Fund Total: 8,348.16 American Engineering Testing, Inc. 0 11/23/2016 Street Construction Contractor Payments 4,088.90Material Testing Contractor Payments Total: 4,088.90 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 33 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Fund Total: 4,088.90 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications Federal Income Tax 554.97PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 554.97 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications FICA Employee Ded. 435.36PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications FICA Employee Ded. 101.81PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 537.17 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications FICA Employers Share 101.81PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications FICA Employers Share 435.36PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 537.17 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Telecommunications HSA Employee 9.13PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 9.13 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Telecommunications Medical Ins Employee 283.44Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 283.44 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Telecommunications Medical Ins Employer 801.53Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 801.53 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications MN State Retirement 70.37PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 70.37 Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications MNDCP Def Comp 390.00PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 390.00 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications PERA Employee Ded 457.42PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 34 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. PERA Employee Ded Total: 457.42 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications PERA Employer Share 457.42PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications PERA Employer Share 70.37PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 527.79 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Telecommunications State Income Tax 246.18PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 246.18 Fund Total: 4,415.17 CenturyLink Communications 83878 11/23/2016 Telephone PSTN-PRI Access/DID Allocation 29.32Telephone CenturyLink 83877 11/23/2016 Telephone PSTN-PRI Access/DID Allocation 39.50Telephone CenturyLink 83877 11/23/2016 Telephone PSTN-PRI Access/DID Allocation 111.30Telephone Integra 83898 11/23/2016 Telephone PSTN-PRI Access/DID Allocation 354.54Telephone PSTN-PRI Access/DID Allocation Total: 534.66 Fund Total: 534.66 Braun Intertec Corporation 83875 11/23/2016 TIF District #17-Twin Lakes Contractor Payments 10,112.00Twin Lakes Pkwy-Phase III Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. 0 11/23/2016 TIF District #17-Twin Lakes Contractor Payments 500,214.56Twin Lakes Parkway Phase 3 Contractor Payments Total: 510,326.56 Fund Total: 510,326.56 MELISSA & WILLIAM BEAR 83872 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 77.82Refund Check ERICK & CARA BOTHUN 83874 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 456.35Refund Check PATRICIA CONNELLY & CHRISTOPH STEINBRUCHEL 83879 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 95.43Refund Check B.L. ELERT 83890 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 137.44Refund Check ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 83892 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 73.94Refund Check DAVID & RACHEL JAHR 83899 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 17.69Refund Check MATT LAW 83903 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 69.01Refund Check CAROL LEBORIOUS 83905 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 11.15Refund Check AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 35 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. CARLA MEINEKE 83910 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 104.77Refund Check MARIANNE MICCO 83912 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 160.50Refund Check JOE SCHEUNEMANN 83926 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 69.35Refund Check WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 83938 11/23/2016 Water Fund Accounts Payable 18.83Refund Check Accounts Payable Total: 1,292.28 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund Federal Income Tax 1,696.33PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Federal Income Tax Federal Income Tax Total: 1,696.33 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund FICA Employee Ded. 271.90PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employee Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund FICA Employee Ded. 1,162.75PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employee Portion FICA Employee Ded. Total: 1,434.65 IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund FICA Employers Share 1,162.75PR Batch 00002.11.2016 FICA Employer Portion IRS EFTPS- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund FICA Employers Share 271.90PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Medicare Employer Portion FICA Employers Share Total: 1,434.65 Premier Bank 83922 11/23/2016 Water Fund HSA Employee 109.13PR Batch 00002.11.2016 HSA Employee HSA Employee Total: 109.13 ICMA Retirement Trust 457-300227 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund ICMA Def Comp 48.75PR Batch 00002.11.2016 ICMA Deferred Compensation ICMA Def Comp Total: 48.75 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Water Fund Medical Ins Employee 751.11Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employee Total: 751.11 NJPA 83916 11/23/2016 Water Fund Medical Ins Employer 3,305.92Health Insurance Premium-Nov 2016 Medical Ins Employer Total: 3,305.92 MSRS-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund MN State Retirement 186.44PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Post Employment Health Plan MN State Retirement Total: 186.44 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 36 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Great West- Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund MNDCP Def Comp 238.76PR Batch 00002.11.2016 MNDCP Deferred Compensation MNDCP Def Comp Total: 238.76 Fra-Dor Inc. 83893 11/23/2016 Water Fund Operating Supplies 200.00Received Loads USA Blue Book-CC 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund Operating Supplies 218.99Fire Hydrant Gauge Operating Supplies Total: 418.99 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund PERA Employee Ded 1,211.95PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employee Contribution PERA Employee Ded Total: 1,211.95 PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund PERA Employer Share 1,211.95PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera Employer Contribution PERA-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund PERA Employer Share 186.44PR Batch 00002.11.2016 Pera additional employer match PERA Employer Share Total: 1,398.39 Water Conservation Service, Inc. 83937 11/23/2016 Water Fund Professional Services 252.70Leak Locating Service Professional Services Total: 252.70 MN Dept of Revenue-Non Bank 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund State Income Tax 726.91PR Batch 00002.11.2016 State Income Tax State Income Tax Total: 726.91 Xcel Energy 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund Utilities 4,704.39Water Tower Utilities Total: 4,704.39 Harbor Freight Tools-CC 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund Water Meters 47.12Click Torque Menards-CC 0 11/23/2016 Water Fund Water Meters 19.26No Receipt-Ross Water Meters Total: 66.38 Fund Total: 19,277.73 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 37 Check Number Check Date Account Name Vendor NameFund Name AmountInvoice Desc. Report Total: 1,359,876.25 AP-Checks for Approval (11/30/2016 - 8:34 AM)Page 38 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/2016 Item No.:8.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approval of 2017 Business Licenses Page 1 of 4 BACKGROUND 1 Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business licenses to be submitted to the City 2 Council for approval. The following applications are submitted for consideration 3 4 Recycling Hauler License 5 Aspen Waste Systems 6 2951 Weeks Avenue SE 7 Minneapolis, MN 55414 8 9 Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc. 10 5661 152nd Street N 11 Hugo, MN 55038 12 13 International Paper 14 2425 Terminal Road 15 Roseville, MN 55113 16 17 Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service, Inc. 18 1214 Hall Avenue 19 West St. Paul, MN 55118 20 21 Walter’s Recycling and Refuse 22 2830 101st Ave 23 Blaine, MN 55449 24 25 Waste Management of Minnesota, LLC 26 DBA Waste Management 27 10050 Naples St NE 28 Blaine, MN 55449 29 30 31 32 Page 2 of 4 Solid Waste Hauler License 33 Ace Solid Waste, Inc. 34 6601 McKinley Street NW 35 Ramsey, MN 55303 36 37 Aspen Waste Systems 38 2951 Weeks Avenue SE 39 Minneapolis, MN 55414 40 41 Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc. 42 5661 152nd Street N 43 Hugo, MN 55038 44 45 Randy’s Sanitation Inc. 46 DBA Randy’s Environmental Services 47 PO BOX 169 48 4351 US HWY 12 SE 49 Delano, MN 55328 50 51 Ray Anderson & Son’s Co, Inc 52 DBA Dumpster Box Services 53 930 Duluth St 54 St. Paul, MN 55106 55 56 Walter’s Recycling and Refuse 57 2830 101st Ave 58 Blaine, MN 55449 59 60 Waste Management of Minnesota, LLC 61 DBA Waste Management 62 10050 Naples St NE 63 Blaine, MN 55449 64 65 Pawn Shop and Precious Metals Dealer License 66 Pawn America Minnesota, LLC 67 DBA Pawn America 68 1715 N Rice Street 69 Roseville, MN 55113 70 71 Massage Therapist License 72 Nancy Xiong 73 Massage Envy 74 2480 Fairview Ave N #120 75 Roseville, MN 55113 76 77 78 79 Page 3 of 4 80 Gambling Exempt Permit 81 Church of St. Odilia 82 3495 Victoria St N 83 Shoreview, MN 55126 84 85 The Church of St. Odilia is hosting an event at Axel’s (Radisson Hotel) located at 2450 Cleveland Ave 86 N on February 13th. The church is a non-profit organization which will have Bingo and a Raffle. 87 88 89 90 The following businesses have not returned all of their application materials as of the writing of this 91 RCA. However, we anticipate their return in the coming week. Staff recommends the Council approve 92 the licenses subject to the remittance of all remaining application materials. 93 94 Recycling Hauler License 95 Lightning Disposal 96 1725 Meadow View Rd 97 Eagan, MN 55121 98 99 Neighborhood Recycling Corp 100 DBA Eureka Recycling 101 2828 Kennedy St NE 102 Minneapolis, MN 55413 103 104 Advanced Disposal Services 105 DBA Advanced Disposal 106 309 Como Ave 107 St. Paul, MN 55103 108 109 Highland Sanitation & Recycling Services 110 PO Box 10 111 Vermillion, MN 55085 112 113 Republic Services 114 DBA Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities 115 4325 E 66th St 116 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 117 118 Solid Waste Hauler License 119 Advanced Disposal Services 120 DBA Advanced Disposal 121 309 Como Ave 122 St. Paul, MN 55103 123 124 Highland Sanitation & Recycling Services 125 PO Box 10 126 Page 4 of 4 Vermillion, MN 55085 127 128 Republic Services 129 DBA Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities 130 4325 E 66th St 131 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 132 133 134 135 POLICY OBJECTIVE 136 Required by City Code 137 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 138 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the application(s) were made. 139 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 140 Staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that the applicant(s) meet all City requirements, with 141 the exceptions noted above. Staff recommends approval of the licenses upon receipt of all outstanding 142 applications materials and payments. 143 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 144 Motion to approve the business licenses upon receipt of all outstanding applications materials and 145 payments. 146 147 148 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Applications – Waste & Recycling B: City Code Chapter 309 149 Attachment A CHAPTER 309 MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENTS SECTION: 309.01: Definitions 309.02: License for Massage Therapy Establishment 309.03: Granting, Denying or Rescinding of Licenses 309.04: Practice of Massage Therapy Only by Licenses Persons 309.05: Revocation or Suspension of License 309.06: Restrictions and Regulations 309.07: Violations, Penalty 309.01: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: CHAIR MASSAGE: A massage provided to a fully-clothed individual, and limited to the neck, shoulders, arms, and back, where the massage is not provided in a massage therapy establishment; and provided the individual giving the massage meets the requirements specified in Section 309.04 (A). (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) MASSAGE THERAPIST: A person who practices massage therapy. MASSAGE THERAPY: The rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping or rolling of the body with the hands or other parts of the body for the exclusive purposes of relaxation, physical fitness or beautification and for no other purpose. The practice of massage therapy is hereby declared to be distinct from the licensed practice of medicine, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy, podiatry and nursing, as well as athletic coaches and trainers. Persons engaged in those professions are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENT: Any room, or premise wherein a person may receive a massage from a massage therapist for a fee; where massages are given on more than 14 calendar days in any given calendar year. (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) SANITARY: Free from the vegetative cells of pathogenic microorganisms. (Ord. 1142, 6-13-1994) 309.02: LICENSE FOR MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENT: A.License Required: No person shall engage in the business of operating a massage therapy establishment within the City without first having obtained the required license. B.Application Fee: The initial application for a license shall be made by completing an application form provided by and containing such information as required by the CityManager and by paying a nonrefundable application fee, as established by the City FeeSchedule in Section 314.05. (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) Attachment B C. Separate License Required Fee: A separate license shall be obtained for each place of business, the fee for which shall be as established by the City Fee Schedule in Section 314.05. (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) 309.03: GRANTING, DENYING OR RESCINDING OF LICENSES: A. Zoning Compliance: Massage Therapy Establishment licenses may be granted only to establishments associated with and operating within the confines of and incidental to a properly zoned beauty parlor (salon), health club, office, shopping mall, or similar areas open to the public. (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) B. Building, Safety and Sanitation Regulations: Licenses may be denied or rescinded if the premises of the massage therapy establishments do not meet the requirements of the City Council, and of the building, safety and sanitation regulations of the City and State. C. Fraud or Deception: Licenses may be denied or rescinded if there is any fraud or deception involved in the license application. D. History of Violations: Licenses may be denied or rescinded if the applicant, licensee or employee of the same fails to comply with, or have a history of violations of the laws or ordinances which apply to health, safety or moral turpitude. E. Additional Conditions: The City Council may attach such reasonable conditions to the license as it, in its sole discretion, deems to be appropriate. (Ord. 1142, 6-13-1994) (Ord. 1283, 6-16-03) 309.04: PRACTICE OF MASSAGE THERAPY ONLY BY LICENSED PERSONS: A. Application for License: Any person or business desiring to be licensed as a massage therapy establishment shall file an application on forms provided by the City Manager. The application shall contain such information as the City Manager may require, including: (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) 1. The applicant's full name, address, social security number and written proof of age. 2. The name and address of the licensed massage therapy establishment by which the applicant expects to be employed. 3. A statement concerning whether the person has been convicted of or entered a plea of guilty to any crime or ordinance violation and, if so, information as to the time, place and nature of such crime or offense. 4. Proof that the applicant meets the following educational requirements: a. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a school approved by the American Massage Therapist Association or other similar reputable massage association; or b. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a school which is either accredited by a recognized educational accrediting association or agency or is licensed by the State or local government agency having jurisdiction over the school. c. Each applicant shall also furnish proof at the time of application of a minimum of 600 hours of successfully completed course work in the following areas: (1) The theory and practice of massage, including, but not limited to, Swedish, Esalen, Shiatsu and/or foot reflexology techniques; and (2) Anatomy, including, but not limited to, skeletal and muscular structure and organ placement; and (3) Hygiene. B. Fee: The annual license fee for a massage therapist is as established by the City Fee Schedule in Section 314.05. Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) C. Review of Application: License applications shall be reviewed by the Police Department. D. Denial of Application: The license application may be denied for any of the following reasons: 1. Fraudulent Statements: The application contains false, fraudulent, or deceptive statements. 2. Prior Conviction: The applicant has been convicted of or entered a plea of guilty within the previous three years to a violation of this Chapter or of any other law regulating the practice of massage, or of any law prohibiting criminal sexual conduct, prostitution, pandering, indecent conduct or keeping of a disorderly house. 3. Noncompliance: The applicant has not complied with a provision of this Chapter. 4. Underage: The applicant is less than eighteen (18) years of age. (Ord. 1142, 6-13-94) 309.05: REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSE: A license may be revoked or suspended for any of the following reasons: A. Application Fraud: Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the registration application. B. Violation of Chapter: A violation of any provision of this Chapter. C. Criminal Conviction: Conviction of a criminal sexual conduct, prostitution, pandering, indecent conduct or keeping a disorderly house. D. Conviction Arising out of Practice of Massage Therapy: Conviction of any crime or ordinance violation arising out of the practice of massage therapy. E. Lack of Skill: Exhibition of a demonstrable lack of skill in the practice of massage therapy. (Ord. 1142, 6-13-94) 309.06: RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS: A. Display of License: Any person registered as a massage therapist hereunder shall display such license, or a true copy thereof, in a prominent place at such person's place of employment. B. Identification: Upon demand of any police officer at the place of employment, any person licensed hereunder shall produce correct identification, identifying himself/herself by his/her true legal name and correct address. C. Inspection: During business hours, all massage therapy establishments shall be open to inspection by City Building and License Inspectors, Health Officers and police officers. D. Therapist, Change of Location: Any person licensed hereunder shall practice massage only at such location or locations as are designated in the license. Any person registered hereunder shall inform the City Manager, in writing, of any change in location prior to its occurrence. E. Hours: No customers or patrons shall be allowed to enter or remain on the licensed premises after 9:00 P.M. or before 8:00 A.M. daily. F. Alcohol or Drugs Prohibited: No beer, liquor, narcotic drug or controlled substance, as such terms are defined by State statutes or the City Code shall be permitted on licensed premises. G. Violation of Building, Safety or Health Regulations: Violation of any law or regulation relating to building, safety or health shall be grounds for revocation or any license. H. Locks on Doors: There shall be no locks on doors of massage rooms. I. Appropriate Covering Required: 1. Patron: Whenever a massage is given, it shall be required by the massage therapist that the person who is receiving the massage shall have her breasts and his/her buttocks and genitals covered with a nontransparent material. For purposes of receiving a chair massage, patrons must stay fully-clothed at all times. (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) 2. Therapist: Any massage therapists performing any massages shall at all times have her breasts and his/her buttocks and genitals covered with a nontransparent material. (Ord. 1142, 6-13-94) J. With the exception of chair massages, all other types of massages shall take place in a private room subject to the conditions and restrictions noted above. (Ord. 1329, 11-14-05) 309.07: VIOLATIONS, PENALTY: Every person who violates this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 1142, 6-13-94) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/2016 Item No.: 8.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000 Page 1 of 2 BACKGROUND 1 City Code section 103.05 establishes the requirement that all general purchases and/or contracts in 2 excess of $5,000 be approved by the Council. In addition, State Statutes require that the Council 3 authorize the sale of surplus vehicles and equipment. 4 5 General Purchases or Contracts 6 City Staff have submitted the following items for Council review and approval: 7 8 Budget P.O.Budget / Division Vendor Description Key Amount Amount CIP Information Tech.Software House Int'l Email threat protection services (a)14,000.00$ 40,392.00$ Budget Fire Motorola Solutions 800mz radio replacements 80,000.00 79,691.00 CIP Parks Precision Landscape EAB Program (b)25,000.00 10,000.00 Budget 9 10 Comments/Description: 11 a) Roseville’s share of the cost is approximately $7,400. The remainder is paid for by Metro I-Net partnering 12 agencies. 13 b) Includes treatment and removal of EAB-infested trees on public property. 14 15 Sale of Surplus Vehicles or Equipment 16 City Staff have identified surplus vehicles and equipment that have been replaced or are no longer needed 17 to deliver City programs and services. These surplus items will either be traded in on replacement items 18 or will be sold in a public auction or bid process. The items include the following: 19 20 Department Item / Description POLICY OBJECTIVE 21 Required under City Code 103.05. 22 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 23 Funding for all items is provided for in the current operating or capital budget. 24 Page 2 of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 25 Staff recommends the City Council approve the submitted purchases or contracts for service and, if 26 applicable, authorize the trade-in/sale of surplus items. 27 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 28 Motion to approve the attached list of general purchases and contracts for services and where 29 applicable; the trade-in/sale of surplus equipment. 30 31 32 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: 2016 CIP Purchase Summary 33 City of Roseville Updated October 31, 2016 2016 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items Council P.O.Budget YTD Approval Amount Amount Actual Difference Administration Voting Equipment -$ 9,000$ 70,280$ (61,280)$ Office Furniture - 5,000 - 5,000 Finance Software Acquisition - 20,000 - 20,000 Central Services Copier & Postage Machine Lease - 77,840 88,713 (10,873) Police Marked Squad Car Replacements 1/11/2016 78,495 132,000 139,640 (7,640) Unmarked Vehicle Replacement 1/11/2016 52,112 24,000 51,150 (27,150) Park Patrol Vehicle Replacement 7/11/2016 7,940 10,500 7,977 2,523 Vehicle Tools & Equipment - 11,855 4,300 7,555 Vehicle Computers & Printers - 19,760 - 19,760 K9 - 16,000 - 16,000 Sidearms, Long-Guns, Non-Lethal Equip.4/11/2016 25,340 18,080 38,392 (20,312) Tactical Gear 1/11/2016 10,800 11,330 11,463 (133) Crime Scene Equipment - 4,000 - 4,000 Radio Equipment 9/12/2016 10,786 15,500 10,786 4,714 Office Equipment 2/8/2016 5,390 9,225 - 9,225 Office Furniture 9/12/2016 5,514 8,400 525 7,875 Kitchen Items - 4,635 3,463 1,172 Fire SCBA's - 350,000 264,770 85,230 Training Equipment - 3,000 - 3,000 Air Monitoring Equipment - 5,000 - 5,000 Other Equipment - -9,134 (9,134) Rescue Equipment - 15,000 7,943 7,057 Public Works Vehicle Replacement: Engineering 1/25/2016 20,800 25,000 - 25,000 Vehicle Replacement: 1-ton - 33,000 - 33,000 Vehicle Replacement: 3/4-ton 1/25/2016 25,539 27,500 27,238 262 Vehicle Replacement: Wheel Loader 1/25/2016 126,918 205,000 96,131 108,869 Vehicle Replacement: Bobcat - 22,000 - 22,000 Vehicle Replacement: Sign Truck 7/25/2016 - 50,000 - 50,000 Office Furniture - 5,000 - 5,000 Parks & Recreation Grader - 45,000 - 45,000 Trailer - 5,000 - 5,000 Sweeper - 8,000 - 8,000 Mower Blade Sharpener - 10,000 - 10,000 Prior Year CIP Items (pushed to '16)3/28/2016 141,447 - 142,116 (142,116) Attachment A City of Roseville Updated October 31, 2016 2016 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items Council P.O.Budget YTD Approval Amount Amount Actual Difference General Facility Improvements Replace Rooftop Heat/AC - 20,000 - 20,000 Replace garage Co Ra Vac Heaters - 60,000 - 60,000 Door Card Reader - 10,000 - 10,000 Update Flooring CH/PD 5/9/2016 81,660 75,000 54,278 20,722 City Hall Entrance Walkway Improvements - 15,000 - 15,000 Card Access System Replacement - 40,000 36,907 3,093 Brimhall Gymnasium - 5,000 - 5,000 Central Park Gymnasium - 5,000 - 5,000 Commons: Electronic Lock System - 50,000 - 50,000 Arena: Mezzanine Glass System - 15,000 - 15,000 OVAL: Cooling Tower - 85,000 - 85,000 OVAL: Micro Processors - 50,000 - 50,000 OVAL: Bathroom Partitions - 7,500 - 7,500 OVAL: Zamboni - 115,000 - 115,000 Information Technology Computer Replacements - 91,750 56,649 35,101 Printers & Copiers - 19,800 - 19,800 Network Equipment Various 63,501 87,995 73,137 14,858 Server Room Cooling 6/20/2016 - 18,000 - 18,000 Surveillance Cameras (40)- 11,250 - 11,250 Telephone Handsets (283)- 40,000 - 40,000 Office Furniture - 25,000 23,122 1,878 Park Improvements Tennis & Basketball Courts - 10,000 19,380 (9,380) Shelters & Structures - 51,500 - 51,500 Volleyball & Bocce Ball Courts - 15,000 - 15,000 Pathway Lighting - 25,000 - 25,000 PIP Items - 200,000 179,804 20,196 Natural Resources - 50,000 - 50,000 Street Improvements Improvements Various 180,000 2,100,000 1,888,837 211,163 Street Lighting Improvements - 25,000 - 25,000 Pathways (Existing) Improvements - 180,000 159,650 20,350 Communications Conference Room Equipment - 4,500 - 4,500 Other Equipment - 10,000 - 10,000 License Center General Office Equipment - 1,000 6,581 (5,581) Office Painting - 6,500 - 6,500 Office Carpetting - 15,000 - 15,000 Community Development Computer Replacements - 4,300 1,622 2,678 Permit Database Conversion - 3,000 - 3,000 Online Permit/Scheduling Software - 20,000 - 20,000 Office Furniture - 1,000 1,296 (296) City of Roseville Updated October 31, 2016 2016 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items Council P.O.Budget YTD Approval Amount Amount Actual Difference Water Trench Box Replacement - 30,000 - 30,000 Watermain Replacement 2/8/2016 94,017 900,000 698,551 201,449 Other Equipment - - 57,048 (57,048) Sanitary Sewer Vehicle Replacement: 1-ton - 40,000 - 40,000 Wacker Compactor Replacement - 25,000 - 25,000 Galtier LS Rehab - 400,000 16,139 383,861 Sewer Main Repairs - 1,000,000 1,262,089 (262,089) I & I Reduction - 100,000 - 100,000 Storm Sewer Compost Turner - 160,000 - 160,000 Pond improvements/Infiltration - 300,000 371,783 (71,783) Storm Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation 3/14/2016 44,000 400,000 891,647 (491,647) Golf Course Gas Pump Replacement - 10,000 - 10,000 Greens Mower - 30,000 - 30,000 Course Netting/Deck/Shelter - 12,000 - 12,000 Clubhouse Roof Replace - 33,000 - 33,000 Clubhouse / Carpeting / Flooring - 12,000 - 12,000 Sidewalk/Exterior repairs - 8,000 - 8,000 Irrigation System Upgrades - 24,000 - 24,000 Total - All Items 8,257,720$ 6,772,538$ 1,485,182$ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/5/2016 Item No.: 8.d Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider Not Waiving Statutory Liability Limits for 2017 Page 1 of 1 BACKGROUND 1 Minnesota Statute 466.04 states that liability of any municipality on any one claimant shall not exceed 2 $500,000 when the claim is for death, wrongful act, or omission; and shall not pay more than $1,500,000 3 for claims arising out of a single occurrence. 4 5 State Statute provides municipalities the opportunity to waive the individual statutory limit to better 6 accommodate claimants that may have been harmed by the City’s actions or negligence. However, by 7 waiving the statutory limit there is no limit on the settlement a claimant(s) may receive, and the waiver 8 would apply to all claims. The City’s Liability Insurance provider requires a formal action by the City 9 Council designating its intentions. 10 POLICY OBJECTIVE 11 Not applicable. 12 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 13 Waiving the statutory limits would create greater risk and carry the potential for higher insurance payouts on 14 claims brought against the City. 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 16 Staff recommends the Council NOT waive the Statutory Liability Limits for 2017. 17 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 18 Motion to NOT waive the Statutory Liability Limits for 2017. 19 20 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: N/A 21 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 5, 2016 Item No.: 8.e Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Confirm Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/Appointment Schedule Page 1 of 3 BACKGROUND 1 2 The City has seven standing commissions. Commissions advise the City Council on specific 3 actions and offer citizens a way to provide input on issues of importance. The Council annually 4 appoints citizens to the commissions. 5 6 The City Council requests interviews, re-appoints Commissioners and/or declares vacancies on 7 the standing Commissions. At the December 6, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council passed a 8 resolution limiting Commissioners to two consecutive, three-year terms and requiring 9 Commissioners to reapply for reappointment to a second term. The resolution states that “A. No 10 later than sixty days….the Council will consider whether to interview the commissioner; if two 11 council members request, a commissioner seeking reappointment will be scheduled to attend an 12 interview before the entire Council. B. Should the Council determine that the individual merits 13 reappointment, that person will be reappointed.” 14 15 The commission application process has been refined over the years to recruit the best candidates 16 for commissions. To ensure availability for interviews, staff includes the interview dates in the 17 Requests for Council Actions and in news releases and website postings. By including the 18 interview date in the notices, candidates can plan to be available that day. 19 20 Once the application deadline closes, staff determines the number of applicants and sets 21 interview times. Candidates are notified by email and a follow up phone call. If we do not receive 22 confirmation, staff sends a letter confirming the interview date and time. 23 24 Commissioners are appointed to terms that begin April 1 of each year. The following 25 Commissioners’ terms expire March 31, 2017: 26 27 Community Engagement 28 29 Chelsea Holub – eligible and requests reappointment 30 Michelle Manke – eligible and requests reappointment 31 Amber Sattler – not interested in reappointment 32 Page 2 of 3 33 34 35 In addition, Theresa Gardella and Scott Becker are resigning from the Community Engagement 36 Commission. Ms. Gardella’s term runs through March 31, 2019. Mr. Becker’s term runs through 37 March 31, 2019. 38 39 Finance Commission 40 41 Matt Harold - eligible and requests reappointment 42 Edwin Hodder - eligible and requests reappointment 43 John Murray – eligible and requests reappointment 44 45 In addition, Rao Konidena is resigning from the Finance Commission. His term runs through 46 March 31, 2018. 47 48 Human Rights Commission 49 50 Edward Johnson - eligible and requests reappointment: 51 Molli Slade – not interested in reappointment 52 53 Parks and Recreation Commission 54 55 Lee Diedrick – not eligible for reappointment 56 Terrance Newby – eligible and requests reappointment 57 58 Planning Commission 59 60 Michael Bogusewski – not eligible for reappointment 61 James Daire – eligible and requests reappointment 62 63 Police Civil Service Commission 64 65 Zoe Jenkins – not eligible for reappointment 66 67 Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission 68 69 Sarah Brodt-Lenz – not interested in reappointment 70 Brian Cihacek – eligible and requests reappointment 71 72 Applications for commissioners who wish to be reappointed will be available at the January 9 73 Council meeting. 74 75 Staff will contact commission chairs to get recommendations of reappointments. Staff will also 76 get commissioners’ attendance records for the previous 12 months. 77 Page 3 of 3 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 78 79 Confirm Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/Appointment Process – two options: 80 with interviewing commissioners requesting reappointment and without interviewing 81 commissioner requesting reappointment. 82 83 84 Schedule if commissioners are interviewed for reappointment 85 86  January 9 – Applications from commissioners seeking reappointment will be included in 87 Council packet. Council may reappoint and/or determine which commissioners to 88 interview. If no commissioners are to be interviewed, staff will begin advertising the 89 vacancies using the deadlines below. 90  January 23 – Interview returning commissioners (if applicable). 91  January 30 – Consider applications of commissioners who were re-interviewed, and 92 reappoint and/or declare vacancies. Authorize staff to advertise for commission vacancies 93 with a March 7 deadline for applications. 94  March 13 – Interview commission applicants before regular meeting. Start time depends 95 upon how many applicants to be interviewed. 96  March 20 – Appoint applicants to fill vacancies. 97 98 Schedule if commissioners are not interviewed for reappointment 99 100  January 9 – Applications from commissioners seeking reappointment will be included in 101 Council packet. Consider applications of commissioners who were re-interviewed, and 102 reappoint and/or declare vacancies. Authorize staff to advertise for commission vacancies 103 with a February 20 deadline for applications. 104  February 27 – Interview commission applicants before regular meeting. Start time 105 depends upon how many applicants to be interviewed. 106  March 13 – Appoint applicants to fill vacancies. 107 108 Prepared by: Carolyn Curti, Communications Specialist Attachments: A: Resolution 10782 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 25th day of January, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Pust, Roe, Johnson, Ihlan and Klausing, and the following were absent: none. Member Klausing introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 10782 (supersedes Resolution 10266) Reappointment Process and Term Limits Policy Roseville Citizen Advisory Commissions WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has six standing Advisory Commissions: Ethics, Human Rights, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police Civil Service, and Public Works, Environment and Transportation; and WHEREAS, the City also establishes other advisory groups as needed; and WHEREAS, numerous Roseville residents have volunteered their time and skills serving as Commission members. The efforts and commitment of these volunteers have been an important ingredient in Roseville’s quality of life; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roseville City Council hereby adopts a Reappointment and Term Limit Policy to establish a fair and open notification and selection process that encourages all Roseville residents to apply for appointments. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Roe, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Pust, Roe, Johnson, Ihlan and Klausing, and the following voted against the same: none. WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Attachment A 2 Resolution – Advisory Comm Reappointment and Term Limits Policy STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 25th day of January, 2010 with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 25th day of January, 2010. _________________________________ William J. Malinen, City Manager (Seal) 3 RESOLUTION ADOPTED: 1/25/2010 CITY OF ROSEVILLE REAPPOINTMENT PROCESS AND TERM LIMITS POLICY ROSEVILLE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSIONS BACKGROUND The City of Roseville has six standing Advisory Commissions:, Ethics, Human Rights, Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police Civil Service, and Public Works, Environment and Transportation; the City also establishes other advisory groups as needed. POLICY STATEMENT: It is the intent of this policy to establish a fair and open notification and selection process that encourages all Roseville residents to apply for appointments. PROCEDURE STATEMENT: I. If a vacancy occurs because of resignation, death, moving from the City, removal from office, ineligibility for reappointment, etc., on any standing Advisory Commission, the following procedure will be used. A. When a Commission vacancy occurs the City Council, at a regular meeting, will establish a deadline for receiving applications and the date of the Council Meeting to interview the applicants. The time between the application deadline and the interviews shall be no more 30 days. B. Commission vacancies will be advertised in the City’s legal newspaper and, if different, the Roseville Review at least two times before the application deadline. Vacancies will also be advertised on Cable Television and posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board. C. Applications received after the deadline will not be accepted. D. Names of applicants and applications will be provided to the City Council and the public after the application deadline. E. If fewer applications are received than twice the number of openings, the City Council may establish a new application deadline and Council Meeting for interviews. If a new deadline is adopted, the vacancy will be re-advertised as described in “B”: above. F. Applicants will be interviewed by the City Council. The Chair or the Chair’s designee, of the Commission to which the applicant is seeking appointment will be invited to attend and participate in the interview process. Interviews are open to the public. 4 G. If a new vacancy occurs after an application deadline and before an appointment is made, a new application process will be used as described in this procedure. H. The City Council will make the appointments at the first Council meeting following interviews. I. Advisory Commission Applications shall be kept on file for one year. If during that year a vacancy occurs on any Commission, all applicants will be advised of the vacancy in writing. II. If a current Commission member’s term is expiring and is eligible for reappointment, the following procedure will be used. A. No later than sixty days prior to the expiration of a term, each commission member whose term is expiring shall be contacted in writing and directed to complete a written application for reappointment if they desire to be reappointed. For persons seeking reappointment, the Council shall be advised of the attendance record of the individual whose term is expiring. The Council will also be provided with written comments from the Chairperson of the Commission regarding the reappointment of the individual. At that time, the Council will consider whether to interview the commissioner; if two councilmembers request, a commissioner seeking reappointment will be scheduled to attend an interview before the entire Council B. Should the Council determine that the individual merits reappointment, that person will be reappointed. C. Should the incumbent not wish to be reappointed or should the Council determine that the individual does not merit reappointment, the Council will follow the procedure for filling vacancies ad described in I. above. APPOINTMENT TO OTHER CITY ADVISORY GROUPS The Council may use the procedure outlined in Sections I. and II. above for making appointments to other advisory groups, committees, task forces, etc. TERM LIMITS Members of all Advisory Commissions may serve a maximum of two full consecutive three-year terms. The Council may reappoint a person for a period not exceeding one additional year if the Council, by four-fifths vote determines that reappointment is in the best interest of such Commission and the City. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Agenda Date: 12/5/2016 Agenda Item: 8.f Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Authorize staff to enter into a professional services contract with Kimley- Horn to lead an update of the subdivision code (PROJ-0042) PROJ0042_RCA_20161205_Consultant_Selection (002) Page 1 of 2 BACKGROUND 1 On September 19, 2016, the City Council enacted an interim ordinance (i.e., a moratorium) 2 prohibiting creation of parcels for new residential development through the “minor 3 subdivision” process defined in the Subdivision Code. The interim ordinance was adopted 4 with the understanding that the Subdivision Code, and Minor Subdivision section, was due 5 for updating. The moratorium is set to expire on March 18, 2017, or upon the adoption of 6 revised minor subdivision regulations addressing the reasons for enacting the interim 7 ordinance; if necessary, the moratorium may be extended up to an additional six months 8 beyond March 18, 2017, to allow more time to appropriately update the minor subdivision 9 ordinance. 10 PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS 11 The Subdivision Code as a whole has been in need of update, at least since the adoption of 12 the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; an update is still required to ensure that the subdivision 13 regulations are in line with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, much like the 14 zoning code update that was completed in 2010. The Planning Division believes, however, 15 that the bulk of the existing subdivision regulations, which were adopted in 1956 to provide 16 for the orderly physical development of a community that was substantially undeveloped, are 17 less appropriate for a community that has become almost completely built-out in the 18 intervening 60 years. Subdivision regulations that were suitable for platting large tracts of 19 open or agricultural land with many lots and new street rights-of-way are less well suited to 20 guiding current applications, which predominantly involve further subdivision of individual 21 parcels, transferring small parcels of land from one lot to an abutting neighbor, or aggregating 22 groups of smaller parcels into larger lots for redevelopment. Beginning in early 2014, 23 Planning Division staff made attempts to research current best practices and draft appropriate 24 updates to subdivision code regulations, but due to workload and capacity constraints, the 25 Planning Division has only been able to respond with text amendments to the code in 26 reaction to applications received. 27 The Planning Division budgeted to hire a consultant to lead this process, with the intent to 28 begin the update in 2017. Staff has requested proposals from consultants to lead a process of 29 updating the whole subdivision code, including the minor subdivision regulations, at once, 30 ideally completing the update before the moratorium expires. 31 PROJ0042_RCA_20161205_Consultant_Selection (002) Page 2 of 2 Staff received five proposals, with a wide range of scopes and an average price of $21,675, 32 and found that the proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) identified 33 the most appropriate work plan at a cost of $19,500, which falls within the Community 34 Development Department’s budget of approximately $20,000 for updating the Subdivision 35 Code in 2017. Generally, the proposal involves the following steps which can be completed 36 by mid-March: 37  creating a detailed outline describing how and why a new subdivision code would 38 resemble or differ from the existing regulations; staff would present this outline to the 39 Planning Commission and City Council for feedback and guidance 40  drafting the revised subdivision code based on the intermediate feedback to the 41 proposed outline 42  presenting the draft subdivision code at a public hearing and revising the draft 43 according to the Planning Commission’s recommendation after the public hearing 44  presenting the final draft ordinance to City Council for final action 45  making any required changes specified by City Council action on the ordinance 46 A detailed, draft scope of work has been provided in the consultant’s proposal, and this 47 information is the basis for the Standard Agreement for Professional Services. The proposal 48 references Kimley-Horn’s professional services agreement, but Kimley-Horn and the City 49 Attorney have agreed on the terms of Roseville’s Standard Agreement for Professional 50 Services. Therefore, the standard agreement, supported by Kimley-Horn’s detailed scope of 51 work and cost, is included with this RCA for Council approval. 52 REQUESTED ACTION 53 Authorize staff to enter into a Standard Agreement for Professional Services with 54 Kimley-Horn to lead an update of the subdivision code based on the detailed scope of 55 services. 56 Attachment: A. Standard Agreement for Professional Services, with scope of work and costs as Exhibits to the agreement Prepared by: Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 651-792-7073 bryan.lloyd@cityofroseville.com Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc1 1 2 3 Standard Agreement for Professional Services 4 5 678 9 10 This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on the 8th day of December, 2016, between the 11 City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and Kimley-Horn and 12 Associates, Inc., a domestic corporation (hereinafter “Consultant”). 13 14 Preliminary Statement 15 16 The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a 17 variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or 18 corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of 19 this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the performance of professional 20 services by the Consultant. 21 22 The City and Consultant agree as follows: 23 24 1.Scope of Work Proposal. The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services 25 shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto (“Work”) in consideration for the compensation set 26 forth in Provision 3 below. The terms of this Agreement shall take precedence over and 27 supersede any provisions and/or conditions in any proposal submitted by the Consultant. 28 29 2.Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from December 8, 2016, through June, 6, 30 2017, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. 31 32 3.Compensation for Services. The City agrees to pay the Consultant the compensation 33 described in Exhibit B attached hereto for the Work, subject to the following: 34 35 A.Any changes in the Work which may result in an increase to the compensation due36 the Consultant shall require prior written approval of the City. The City will not pay37 additional compensation for Work that does not have such prior written approval.38 39 B.Third party independent contractors and/or subcontractors may be retained by the40 Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Work when41 authorized in writing by the City. The Consultant shall be responsible for and shall42 pay all costs and expenses payable to such third party contractors unless otherwise43 agreed to by the parties in writing.44 45 Attachment A Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc2 4.City Assistance. The City agrees to provide the Consultant with the following assistance 46 concerning the Work to be performed hereunder:47 48 A.Depending on the nature of the Work, Consultant may from time to time require49 access to public and private lands or property. To the extent the City is legally and50 reasonably able, the City shall provide access to and make provisions to enable the51 Consultant to enter upon public and private land and property as required for the52 Consultant to perform and complete the Work.53 54 B.The City shall furnish the Consultant with a copy of any special standards or criteria55 promulgated by the City relating to the Work, including but not limited to design and56 construction standards, that is needed by the Consultant in order to prepare for the57 performance of the Work.58 59 C.A person shall be appointed to act as the City’s representative with respect to the60 Work to be performed under this Agreement. Such representative shall have61 authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City’s62 policy and decisions with respect to the Work to be performed under this Agreement,63 but shall not have the right to enter into contracts or make binding agreements on64 behalf of the City with respect to the Work or this Agreement.65 66 5.Method of Payment. The Consultant shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, an 67 itemized invoice for Work performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be 68 paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City. Invoices shall contain the 69 following: 70 71 A.For Work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each72 employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each73 employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount74 due for each project task. The Consultant shall verify all statements submitted for75 payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For76 reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an77 itemized listing and such documentation of such expenses as is reasonably required78 by the City. Each invoice shall contain the City’s project number and a progress79 summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the Agreement, current80 billing, past payments and unexpended balance due under the Agreement.81 82 B.To receive any payment pursuant to this Agreement, the invoice must include the83 following statement dated and signed by the Consultant: “I declare under penalty of84 perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has85 been paid.”86 87 88 The payment of invoices shall be subject to the following provisions: 89 90 Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc3 A.The City shall have the right to suspend the Work to be performed by the91 Consultant under this Agreement when it deems necessary to protect the City,92 residents of the City or others who are affected by the Work. If any Work to be93 performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the94 Consultant shall be paid for any services performed prior to the delivery upon95 Consultant of written notice from the City of such suspension.96 97 B.The Consultant shall be reimbursed for services performed by any third party98 independent contractors and/or subcontractors only if the City has authorized the99 retention of and has agreed to pay such persons or entities pursuant to Section 3B100 above.101 102 6.Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant has designated Michael Lamb (“Project 103 Contact”) to perform and /or supervise the Work, and as the person for the City to contact 104 and communicate with regarding the performance of the Work. The Project Contact shall 105 be assisted by other employees of the Consultant as necessary to facilitate the completion 106 of the Work in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Consultant 107 may not remove or replace Project Contracts without the prior approval of the City. 108 109 7.Standard of Care. All Work performed by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be 110 in accordance with the normal standard of care in Ramsey County, Minnesota, for 111 professional services of like kind. 112 113 8.Audit Disclosure. Any reports, information, data and other written documents given to, 114 or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests 115 to be kept confidential shall not be made available by the Consultant to any individual or 116 organization without the City’s prior written approval. The books, records, documents 117 and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this 118 Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or 119 the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Agreement. 120 The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat. § 13.01 et seq. and the Minnesota 121 Government Data Practices Act, to the extent the Act is applicable to data, documents, 122 and other information in the possession of the Consultant. 123 124 9.Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the City, with or 125 without cause, by delivering to the Consultant at the address of the Consultant set forth 126 on page 1, a written notice at least seven (7) days prior to the date of such termination. 127 The date of termination shall be stated in the notice. The Consultant shall have the right 128 to terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) days notice to the City upon breach by the 129 City of any of its obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination the Consultant 130 shall be paid for services rendered (and reimbursable expenses incurred if required to be 131 paid by the City under this Agreement) by the Consultant through and until the date of 132 termination so long as the Consultant is not in default under this Agreement. If however, 133 the City terminates the Agreement because the Consultant is in default of its obligations 134 under this Agreement, no further payment shall be payable or due to the Consultant 135 following the delivery of the termination notice, and the City may, in addition to any 136 Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc4 other rights or remedies it may have, retain another consultant to undertake or complete 137 the Work to be performed hereunder. 138 139 10. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided140 under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant 141 shall promptly pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement as 142 required by the State Prompt Payment Act. 143 144 11. Independent Consultant. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Consultant is an145 independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be 146 construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 147 148 12. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall149 not discriminate against any person, contractor, vendor, employee or applicant for 150 employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, 151 status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The 152 Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, 153 notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all 154 qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall 155 incorporate the foregoing requirements of this Provision 12 in all of its subcontracts for 156 Work done under this Agreement, and will require all of its subcontractors performing 157 such Work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for the performance of 158 the Work. The Consultant further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota 159 Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 160 of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 161 162 13. Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign this Agreement, nor its rights and/or163 obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. 164 165 14. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Consultant not166 specifically provided for herein shall be paid by the City. 167 168 15. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Consultant shall abide with all federal,169 state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations in the performance of the 170 Work. The Consultant and City, together with their respective agents and employees, 171 agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes 172 Section 13, as amended, and Minnesota Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 13. Any 173 violation by the Consultant of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the 174 Work to be performed shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the 175 City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 176 177 16. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall178 not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 179 180 17. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant agrees to defend,181 indemnify and hold the City, Councilmembers, officers, agents, employees, and 182 Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc5 representatives harmless from and against all liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, 183 losses, and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, to the extent 184 caused by the negligent acts of the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, 185 contractors, and/or subcontractors pertaining to the execution, performance or failure to 186 adequately perform the Work and/or its obligations under this Agreement. 187 188 18. Insurance. 189 190 A. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work, the Consultant shall procure, maintain 191 and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims for bodily injury or death, 192 and for damage to property, including loss of use, which may arise out of operations 193 by the Consultant or by any subcontractor of the Consultant, or by anyone employed 194 by any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such 195 insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of 196 liability specified in this Provision 18 or required by law. Except as otherwise stated 197 below, the policies shall name the City as an additional insured for the Work provided 198 under this Agreement and shall provide that the Consultant’s coverage shall be 199 primary and noncontributory in the event of a loss. 200 201 B. The Consultant shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance 202 coverages and limits of liability with respect to the Work: 203 204 Worker’s Compensation: Statutory Limits 205 206 Employer’s Liability $500,000 each accident 207 (Not needed for $500,000 disease policy limit 208 Minnesota based $500,000 disease each employee 209 Consultant): 210 211 Commercial General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence 212 $2,000,000 general aggregate 213 $2,000,000 Products – Completed Operations 214 Aggregate 215 $100,000 fire legal liability each occurrence 216 $5,000 medical expense 217 218 Comprehensive Automobile 219 Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit (shall include 220 coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed 221 vehicles. 222 223 C. The Commercial General Liability policy(ies) shall be equivalent in coverage to ISO 224 form CG 0001, and shall include the following: 225 226 a. Personal injury with Employment Exclusion (if any) deleted; 227 228 Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc6 b. Broad Form Contractual Liability coverage; and 229 230 c. Broad Form Property Damage coverage, including Completed Operations. 231 232 233 D. Professional Liability Insurance. The Consultant agrees to provide to the City a 234 certificate evidencing that it has in effect, with an insurance company in good 235 standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability insurance 236 policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for liability arising out of the 237 performance of professional services for the City, in the insured’s capacity as the 238 Consultant, if such liability is caused by a negligent act, error, or omission of the 239 insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is liable. Said policy 240 shall provide an aggregate limit of $19,500.00. 241 242 E. Consultant shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this 243 Provision 18 at Consultant’s sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to 244 do business in the state in Minnesota and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less 245 than A-, unless otherwise agreed to by the City in writing. In addition to the 246 requirements stated above, the following applies to the insurance policies required 247 under this Provision: 248 249 a. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance policy, shall be written on 250 an “occurrence” form (“claims made” and “modified occurrence” forms are not 251 acceptable); 252 253 b. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker’s 254 Compensation Policies, shall contain a waiver of subrogation naming “the City of 255 Roseville”; 256 257 c. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker’s 258 Compensation Policies, shall name “the City of Roseville” as an additional 259 insured; 260 261 d. All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance and Worker’s 262 Compensation Policies, shall insure the defense and indemnify obligations 263 assumed by Consultant under this Agreement; and 264 265 e. All policies shall contain a provision that coverages afforded thereunder shall not 266 be canceled or non-renewed or restrictive modifications added, without thirty (30) 267 days prior written notice to the City. 268 269 A copy of the Consultant’s insurance declaration page, Rider and/or Endorsement, as 270 applicable, which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph 18, must be filed 271 with City prior to the start of Consultant’s Work. Such documents evidencing 272 insurance shall be in a form acceptable to City and shall provide satisfactory evidence 273 that Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates 274 Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc7 shall be provided to City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. 275 City will not be obligated, however, to review such declaration page, Rider, 276 Endorsement or certificates or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Consultant of 277 any deficiencies in such documents and receipt thereof shall not relieve Consultant 278 from, nor be deemed a waiver of, City’s right to enforce the terms of Consultant’s 279 obligations hereunder. City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for 280 under this Provision 18. 281 282 F. If Consultant fails to provide the insurance coverage specified herein, the Consultant 283 will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City’s officials, agents and 284 employees from any loss, claim, liability and expense (including reasonable 285 attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation) to the extent necessary to afford the same 286 protection as would have been provided by the specified insurance. Except to the 287 extent prohibited by law, this indemnity applies regardless of any strict liability or 288 negligence attributable to the City (including sole negligence) and regardless of the 289 extent to which the underlying occurrence (i.e., the event giving rise to a claim which 290 would have been covered by the specified insurance) is attributable to the negligent or 291 otherwise wrongful act or omission (including breach of contract) of Consultant, its 292 contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or delegates. Consultant agrees that 293 this indemnity shall be construed and applied in favor of indemnification. Consultant 294 also agrees that if applicable law limits or precludes any aspect of this indemnity, 295 then the indemnity will be considered limited only to the extent necessary to comply 296 with that applicable law. The stated indemnity continues until all applicable statutes 297 of limitation have run. 298 299 If a claim arises within the scope of the stated indemnity, the City may require 300 Consultant to: 301 302 a. Furnish and pay for a surety bond, satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing 303 performance of the indemnity obligation; or 304 305 b. Furnish a written acceptance of tender of defense and indemnity from 306 Consultant’s insurance company. 307 308 Consultant will take the action required by the City within fifteen (15) days of 309 receiving notice from the City. 310 311 19. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analysis, reports and information 312 generated in connection with the performance of this Agreement (“Information”) shall 313 become the property of the City, but the Consultant may retain copies of such documents 314 as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for any reasons it 315 deems appropriate without being liable to the Consultant for such use. The Consultant 316 shall not use or disclose the Information for purposes other than performing the Work 317 contemplated by this Agreement without the prior consent of the City. 318 319 Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc8 20. Dispute Resolution/Mediation. Each dispute, claim or controversy arising from or 320 related to this Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement shall be 321 subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating arbitration or legal or equitable 322 actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in 323 accordance with the Commercial Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration 324 Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with 325 the American Arbitration Association and the other party. No arbitration or legal or 326 equitable action may be instituted for a period of 90 days from the filing of the request 327 for mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. 328 Cost of mediation shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in 329 the City of Roseville unless another location is mutually agreed upon by the parties. The 330 parties shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a Mediated 331 Settlement Agreement, which Agreement shall be enforceable as a settlement in any 332 court having jurisdiction thereof. 333 334 21. Annual Review. Prior to each anniversary of the date of this Agreement, the City shall 335 have the right to conduct a review of the performance of the Work performed by the 336 Consultant under this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to cooperate in such review and 337 to provide such information as the City may reasonably request. Following each 338 performance review the parties shall, if requested by the City, meet and discuss the 339 performance of the Consultant relative to the remaining Work to be performed by the 340 Consultant under this Agreement. 341 342 22. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Board of the 343 City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The violation of 344 this provision shall render this Agreement void. 345 346 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of 347 Minnesota. 348 349 24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which 350 shall be considered an original. 351 352 25. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, 353 for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such 354 decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 355 356 26. Entire Agreement. Unless stated otherwise in this Provision 26, the entire agreement of 357 the parties is contained in this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral 358 agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as 359 well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the 360 subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the 361 provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly 362 signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. The following agreements 363 supplement and are a part of this Agreement: None . 364 365 Revised 8/3/10 R:\CommDev\PLANNING_AND_ZONING\PROJECT_FILES\PROJ0042_Subdivision_Code_Rewrite\Contract\Standard Agreement for Professional Services-Subdivision Code_KHA Comments.doc9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have entered into this Agreement as 366 of the date set forth above. 367 368 369 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 370 371 372 ____________________________________ 373 Mayor 374 375 376 ____________________________________ 377 City Manager 378 379 380 (CONSULTANT) 381 382 383 By: ________________________________ 384 385 Its: ________________________________ 386 387 388 389 R e d a c t e d t e x t p e r t a i n s t o K i m l e y - H o r n ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s a g r e e m e n t , w h i c h h a s b e e n r e p l a c e d w i t h R o s e v i l l e ' s S t a n d a r d A g r e e m e n t f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 12/05/16 Date: Item No.: 8.g Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider the Issuance of a Premises Permit for Amvets Post 1 to Conduct Lawful Gambling Activities at 2480 Fairview Avenue (Lucky’s 13 restaurant) Page 1 of 3 BACKGROUND 1 Amvets Post 1, a non-profit service organization, has submitted an application to conduct lawful 2 gambling activities at the Lucky’s 13 restaurant located at 2480 Fairview Avenue in Roseville. 3 4 Permitting requirements are set forth in City Code Section 304, and State Statute, Chapter 349. Lawful 5 gambling is permitted in the City if the organization meets the following criteria: 6 7 a)Is licensed by the State Gambling Control Board8 b)Is a tax exempt organization pursuant to 501(c) of the internal revenue code9 c)Maintains a business address within the city10 d)Complies with all other requirements as set forth in City Code and State Statute11 12 The applicant currently meets all local requirements, although licensing by the State is contingent upon 13 local approval. 14 15 POLICY OBJECTIVE 16 Not applicable. 17 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 18 Not applicable. 19 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 20 Staff recommends approval. 21 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 22 Motion to approve the attached resolution granting a premises permit for Amvets Post 1, subject to 23 successful background checks. 24 25 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Resolution Granting the Premise Permit Application B: Premise Permit Application 26 Page 2 of 3 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 27 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 28 29 * * * * * * * * * * *30 31 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, 32 County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 5th day of December 2016 at 6:00 p.m. 33 34 The following members were present: 35 and the following were absent: 36 37 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 38 39 40 RESOLUTION ______________ 41 42 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT TO 43 AMVETS POST 1 44 45 WHEREAS, the Amvets Post 1 organization has applied for a lawful gambling premise permit to conduct 46 lawful gambling activities at 2480 Fairview Avenue; and 47 48 WHEREAS, Amvets Post 1 has met the local permit requirements as specified in City Code, Section 304. 49 50 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, as 51 follows: 52 53 The City of Roseville hereby approves the premise permit application of Amvets Post 1 to conduct lawful 54 gambling activities at 2480 Fairview Avenue. 55 56 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a 57 vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 58 59 60 and the following voted against the same: 61 62 63 WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 64 65 Attachment A Page 3 of 3 State of Minnesota) 66 ) SS 67 County of Ramsey) 68 69 I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State 70 of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of 71 minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of December, 2016, with the original 72 thereof on file in my office. 73 74 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of December, 2016. 75 76 77 ___________________________ 78 Patrick Trudgeon 79 City Manager 80 81 Seal 82 83 84 85 Attachment B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Agenda Date: 12/5/2016 Agenda Item: 10.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Request by City of Roseville to amend City Code Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) to revise regulations pertaining to the quantity of built improvements allowed on properties in the LDR-2 zoning district (PROJ0017) PROJ0017-Improvement_Area-RCA_20161205 (003) Page 1 of 3 APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant: City of Roseville Property Owner: N/A Open House Meeting: N/A Application Submission: N/A City Action Deadline: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held the public hearing for this application on November 2, 2016, and voted 7 – 0 to recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment. ZONING AMENDMENT ANALYSIS 1 In August 2016, the City Council passed an ordinance increasing the amount of impervious 2 surfaces allowed on lots zoned LDR-2 from 30% to 35% and, while the amendment was being 3 considered, the Council directed Planning Division staff to initiate a further amendment of this 4 part of the code to reduce the amount of overall “improvement area’ (i.e., development potential, 5 essentially) of LDR-2 lots. 6 As contemplated in the zoning code, a property’s allowed improvement area is the amount of 7 built improvements permitted, regardless of whether those improvements are impervious or 8 otherwise. This is intended to limit the overall intensity of development on a property after it has 9 reached the permitted amount of impervious surfaces; decks, permeable patios or paths, arbors, 10 and so on are subject to the improvement area limit even if they are built in a way that isn’t 11 impervious. Planting beds and similar landscaped areas are not constrained by the improvement 12 area limit. The current zoning provision, incorporated with the comprehensive zoning code 13 update in 2010, limits an LDR-2 property to 70% coverage by this kind of built improvements, 14 and the City Council instructed staff to lower that allowance to 50% to match the limit for LDR-1 15 properties. 16 PROJ0017-Improvement_Area-RCA_20161205 (003) Page 2 of 3 The desire to further limit built improvements in the LDR-2 district was primarily discussed in 17 the context of lots for single-family, detached homes because the aesthetic expectations for 18 single-family neighborhoods are generally believed to include more “open” or “green” space than 19 neighborhoods of more-dense housing types. Single-family, detached homes are permitted 20 development types in three zoning districts: LDR-1, LDR-2, and MDR. Minimum lot sizes for 21 single-family, detached homes decrease across these districts, and the size of the homes is 22 generally expected to shrink along with lot sizes. The LDR-1, LDR-2, and MDR zoning districts 23 were intended to allow for an increasing proportion of improvement area in an effort to ensure 24 that the lots remained reasonably developable even as the lot sizes approached the minimum 25 standards in their respective districts. 26 This intent is reflected in early drafts of the LDR-1 and -2 and MDR district regulations, 27 although these earliest drafts still utilized limits only on impervious surfaces, as had traditionally 28 been the case. The draft of the LDR-1 district carried forward the 30% limit of the former R1 29 district, the draft LDR-2 district would have allowed 50% impervious coverage on lots for single-30 family, detached homes, and the draft MDR district would have allowed 60% impervious 31 coverage. Eventually, the draft regulations shifted focus from only limiting impervious surfaces 32 to also limiting the kinds of overall built improvements discussed above, since those other 33 improvements also affect the character of a residential property. This is when the 50% 34 improvement area limit was proposed for the LDR-1 district, and the 70% limit was proposed for 35 the LDR-2 district. Staff has been unable to find documentation of why these particular figures 36 were proposed, but they were established some time before the discussion of an improvement 37 area limit for the MDR district. This time differential may help to explain the apparent failure to 38 reconcile the 65% limit later set for the MDR district with the 70% limit in the LDR-2 district 39 when the LDR-2 limit would be expected to be lower than the MDR limit. 40 The City Council’s initial indication about this amendment was that a 50% improvement area 41 limit was preferred for the LDR-2 district, coinciding with the same limit in the LDR-1 district. 42 Planning Division staff believes that there is good reason to lower the limit in the LDR-2 district, 43 especially since the current limit is greater than that of the MDR district. Because of the 44 perceived value in the diversity of housing choices facilitated by the unique LDR-2 lot sizes, the 45 Planning Commission felt allowing a degree of development on LDR-2 lots between the 50% 46 LDR-1 limit and the 65% MDR limit would be worthwhile. For this reason, given that the 47 minimum lot size in the LDR-2 district (i.e., 6,000 square feet) is quite a bit closer to the 4,800 48 square-foot minimum MDR lot size than the minimum lot size in the LDR-1 district (i.e., 11,000 49 square feet), the Planning Commission recommended reducing the LDR-2 improvement area 50 limit to 60% of a parcel area. A draft ordinance is included with this RCA as Exhibit B. 51 PUBLIC COMMENT 52 The public hearing for the proposed zoning amendment was held by the Planning Commission 53 on November 2, 2016; draft minutes of the public hearing are included with this RCA as Exhibit 54 A. The draft minutes indicate the inclusion of a diagram prepared by Commissioner Daire, 55 illustrating various residential lot sizes and the portion of their respective parcel areas 56 encompassed within generalized principal-structure setback lines. The diagram seemed helpful to 57 some Commissioners in visualizing how the improvement area limits compared to the area 58 within these setbacks, but the illustrations didn’t prove helpful in visualizing the effects of 59 improvement area (i.e., its contribution to mass and reduction of green space) because 60 PROJ0017-Improvement_Area-RCA_20161205 (003) Page 3 of 3 improvements are distributed much more widely around a property than the principal structure 61 setback likes would suggest. At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has not 62 received additional communications from the public. 63 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING 64 Action taken on a proposed zoning change is legislative in nature; the City has broad discretion 65 in making land use decisions based on advancing the health, safety, and general welfare of the 66 community. 67 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 68 Pass an ordinance amending City Code Section 1004.09C (Improvement Area) to reduce 69 the Improvement Area limit in the LDR-2 District, based on the findings and recommendation 70 of the Planning Commission, the content of this RCA, public input, and City Council 71 deliberation. 72 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 73 A) Pass a motion to table the item for future action. While there’s no required timeline for 74 approving City-initiated proposals such as this, deferring action into the future could have 75 adverse consequences for property owners or potential developers who may be following 76 this process and anticipating its conclusion. 77 B) By motion, deny the request. Denial should be supported by specific findings of fact 78 based on the City Council’s review of the application, applicable City Code regulations, 79 and the public record. 80 Attachments: A: 11/2/2016 draft public hearing minutes B: Draft ordinance Prepared by: Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 651-792-7073 bryan.lloyd@cityofroseville.com a. PROJECT FILE 0017, Amendment 13 1 Request by the City of Roseville to amend City Code, Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) to revise 2 regulations pertaining to the quantity of built improvements allowed on properties in the LDR-2 3 Zoning District 4 Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 160928 at approximately 8:09 p.m. 5 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly introduced this request for text amendments based on further City 6 Council direction and previous Planning Commission action and staff recommendations. Mr. Lloyd 7 referenced meeting minutes to inform that direction; and reduction in the overall allowable improvement 8 area from the recommended 70% to 50% by the City Council for LDR-2 zoning district designations. Mr. 9 Lloyd reviewed the definition of “improvement area” including all areas built on a property with some 10 counting toward impervious coverage and others not as detailed in the staff report. Mr. Lloyd further 11 reviewed zoning code limitations on the portion of a lot that could be built on and variables between LDR-12 1 and LDR-2 based on recognizing minimum lot sizes and constraints on the developable portion of those 13 lots and market conditions. 14 Mr. Lloyd advised that in staff’s research, the 2010 adjustments made to the zoning code regulating 15 impervious surfaces and improvement areas were intended to provide some flexibility in calculations, and 16 therefore LDR-1 and LDR-2 districts were respectively defined at 50% and 70% as reasonable. Also, Mr. 17 Lloyd pointed out that later a similar flexible calculation had been applied for MDR designations at 65%, 18 somewhat smaller than the 70% for LDR-2 designations. 19 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the idea was that as single-family lot sizes got smaller in LDR-2 and MDR-2, the 20 allowance can increase; but if LDR-1 is at that end of the range at 50% and LDR-2 at the middle of that 21 range; keeping the continuum in place, staff then proposed 60% versus 70% for LDR-2 given lot 22 similarities for MDR versus LDR-1. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd referenced the fairly simple amendment 23 proposed by staff in response to the most recent City Council direction, as shown in the draft ordinance 24 (RPCA Attachment B). 25 Member Bull asked if this would produce any properties in the city now becoming nonconforming. 26 Mr. Lloyd agreed that it probably would, noting that there are some LDR parcels in the city that have been 27 in existence for a long time; and with the latest zoning code amended in 2010 and now applied to 28 properties meeting those development parameters (e.g. two-family homes or duplexes) or having a 29 density parameter for LDR districts, some of those were nearly 100% imperviously covered based on the 30 development put together when constructed, that were at the time legal. Even at 70% coverage, Mr. Lloyd 31 noted some were or would be nonconforming if a smaller portion of the improvement area was now 32 applied. However, Mr. Lloyd noted it was equally true that the city hadn’t received any permits for 33 expansions for any of those properties for many years even with the current LDR-2 district in place. 34 However, Mr. Lloyd advised that no one was going to have a harder time with future proposals with this 35 amendment than they would have under today’s city code provisions. 36 Member Bull stated his concern was with imposing hardships on residents seeking to improve their 37 properties. 38 Mr. Lloyd clarified that in general, this amendment would apply to new versus existing developments. 39 Member Daire asked staff to display a sketch he had created based on his interpretation of what this 40 amendment would mean to various zoning designations for LDR-1, LDR-2 and MDR minimum lot sizes 41 and total buildable or impervious areas. Member Daire reviewed various calculations and required 42 setback scenario for each property type based on impervious surfaces and improvement areas, all toward 43 addressing implications for involvement of total lot area. 44 Using Member Daire’s sketch, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the implications from staff’s perspective, opining that 45 those setbacks as drawn are mostly correct, but needed to be applied to the principle structure (e.g. 46 house and attached garage) and available parameters within which to build. Mr. Lloyd further clarified that 47 an unenclosed porch, even if encroaching into the front yard setback was fine as it was not considered to 48 be an impervious surface, and similarly a detached storage shed or garage as accessory structures or 49 decks without a roof and not enclosed. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd noted there was no direct relationship 50 between the size of a lot and principle structure’s buildable area and the improvement areas as defined in 51 RCA Exhibit A Page 1 of 4 Attachment B, Item C. At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that included driveways and 52 turnarounds as well. 53 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, and with a mixture of examples provided for impervious coverage 54 considerations, Mr. Lloyd further clarified that all impervious coverage was subject to the limits of the 55 overall improvement area. Mr. Lloyd noted that while there was no intentional relationship between the 56 total area of all developments on a site with the overall lot size, they could coincide depending on the 57 specific situation. 58 Chair Boguszewski summarized, with concurrence by Mr. Lloyd, that it was about the improvement area, 59 not the impervious area. 60 Pm Attachment B, Mr. Lloyd pointed out the proposed standards for LDR properties but further reduced 61 and adjusted for properties within a Wetland Management District. 62 Mr. Lloyd noted that since applicable setback lines are different for what ended up built on a given 63 property, all of which could be different, there was no real way to capture how development and setback 64 constraints could be affected and therefore addressing how best to set impervious allowances; and also 65 depending on how dense a given development was to be. 66 Chair Boguszewski led a discussion on City Council direction to staff and request for further review and 67 deliberation by the Planning Commission based on the City Council’s most recent discussions. Individual 68 Commissioners addressed potential impervious coverage percentages to accommodate reasonable 69 terms of scale and lot sizes. 70 Chair Boguszewski opined that he considered 50% coverage for LDR-2 enough and found 60% less 71 desirable. 72 Member Kimble questioned how, as communities and lifestyles change, how these proposed changes 73 applied with other communities and their best practices for use as bench marks to determine if these 74 percentages are appropriate. 75 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had looked at several neighboring communities and their impervious 76 coverage limits for LDR-2, and had also specifically asked questions at the time about raising maximum 77 coverage. However, Mr. Lloyd noted the difficulties in putting together a cohesive picture of those 78 comparisons, as lot sizes tended to be much smaller in other communities as well as how existing 79 construction is regulated. Mr. Lloyd noted that some did have impervious coverage limits, some for the 80 principle structure (e.g. home) but not other impervious surface coverage restrictions, making it difficult to 81 get an across-the-board picture for the total amount of building allowed on a site and how it was 82 regulated. 83 Member Daire noted his sketches didn’t take into consideration turnarounds, now that he understood they 84 were considered improvements, even though sidewalks, driveways and decks may or may not be. 85 Therefore, Member Daire admitted he was now beginning to understand the distinction between setbacks 86 and actual improvement area classification. 87 Mr. Lloyd noted that, even if the improvement area for a particular development or lot size filled up the 88 space in setback boundaries, it didn’t necessarily mean all of those improvements would be located in a 89 block in the middle of the property, but could stretch out on another portion of the site. 90 Chair Boguszewski cited other examples, using Member Daire’s sketch, opining his opinion had been 91 swayed to now consider that 60% for LDR-2 may be enable a reasonable development on a smaller LDR-92 2 designated site; with these sketches guiding his revised opinion, since he was previously missing out on 93 the mathematical and/or geometric context. Chair Boguszewski thanked Member Daire, as a past City of 94 Minneapolis City Planner for adding this dimension to the discussion, and asked staff to include a copy of 95 Member Daire’s diagram as an attachment moving forward to the City Council’s deliberation, attached 96 hereto and made a part hereof. 97 As stated, Chair Boguszewski revised his comfort level to 60%, but no higher; unless it proved contrary to 98 the spirit of overdevelopment and retention of green space. 99 RCA Exhibit A Page 2 of 4 Member Gitzen agreed that 60% be the maximum, and even though he could define no hard numbers for 100 that rationale between 50% and 60%, all considered subjective to him, he opined that 50% was too low 101 and he thought 560% was more accurate. Member Gitzen opined that this wasn’t a math problem that 102 could be solved based on a particular comfort level, but stated that he didn’t’ want to limit people desiring 103 to build. 104 Member Murphy echoed the 60% as reasonable and opined that a result of supporting something lower 105 than that might confine some desired improvements, even though he agreed it was a subjective area, but 106 reiterating that he found the 60% to be his sweet spot. 107 Member Bull referenced earlier action at tonight’s meeting where the Commission had chosen to be more 108 restrictive on the Conditional Use process. However, if the Commission sets this at 50% to 60% on an 109 individual basis, Member Bull asked if that would require a property owner to apply for a Variance in some 110 instances. 111 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that could be the case. However, in the context of Variances versus Conditional 112 Uses, in particular with new development, Mr. Lloyd noted an existing property coming forward for a 113 Variance may be based on something that seemed adequate for development in the 1950’s no longer 114 met household needs. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd opined that likewise someone with a new development would 115 be in that same subjective territory of limits that were overly restrictive now and seeking adequate 116 development on site based on today’s market conditions and what would work for today’s family and 117 lifestyles. Mr. Lloyd opined that may be not different, but within a different context. 118 Chair Boguszewski opined that this was perfect fodder for Variance Board consideration and if a need or 119 hardship is identified under specific situations. 120 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 121 MOTION 122 Bull moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the 123 draft ordinance as presented by staff (RPCA Attachment B) as presented by staff and 124 incorporating the proposed zoning text amendment, based on the comments and findings of the 125 staff report dated November 2, 2016, and based on public comments and Planning Commission 126 input. 127 Ayes: 7 128 Nays: 0 129 Motion carried 130 RCA Exhibit A Page 3 of 4 RCA Exhibit A Page 4 of 4 City of Roseville ORDINANCE NO. ________ 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING IMPROVEMENT AREA REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 1004 2 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) OF TITLE 10 “ZONING CODE” OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY 3 CODE 4 THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS: 5 SECTION 1. Purpose: The Roseville City Code is hereby amended to reduce the Improvement 6 Area limit in the LDR-2 District. 7 SECTION 2. Section 1004.09 (Low-Density Residential-2) is hereby amended as follows: 8 C. Improvement Area: Improvement area, including paved surfaces, the footprints of principal and9 accessory buildings, and other structures like decks, pergolas, pools, etc., shall be limited to 70% 60% 10 of the parcel area. The purpose of this overall improvement area limit is to allow for rather liberal 11 construction on a residential property while preventing over-building; for parcels within a Shoreland 12 or Wetland Management District, paved surfaces and building footprints shall be further limited to 13 25% of the parcel area. 14 SECTION 3 Effective Date: This ordinance amendment to the Roseville City Code shall 15 take effect upon passage and publication. 16 Passed this 5th day of December 2016. 17 RCA Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 City of Roseville ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING IMPROVEMENT AREA REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 1004 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) OF TITLE 10 “ZONING CODE” OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Purpose: The Roseville City Code is hereby amended to reduce the Improvement Area limit in the LDR-2 District. SECTION 2. Section 1004.09 (Low-Density Residential-2) is hereby amended as follows: C.Improvement Area: Improvement area, including paved surfaces, the footprints of principal and accessory buildings, and other structures like decks, pergolas, pools, etc., shall be limited to 70% 60% of the parcel area. The purpose of this overall improvement area limit is to allow for rather liberal construction on a residential property while preventing over-building; for parcels within a Shoreland or Wetland Management District, paved surfaces and building footprints shall be further limited to 25% of the parcel area. SECTION 3 Effective Date: This ordinance amendment to the Roseville City Code shall take effect upon passage and publication. Passed this 5th day of December 2016. Attachment B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/16 Item No.: 10.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider Changes to City Code Chapter 314.05: the 2017 Fee Schedule Page 1 of 5 BACKGROUND 1 Each year the City Council is asked to adopt a Fee Schedule which establishes the fees and charges for 2 service for the City’s regulatory functions. The presence of a fee schedule allows regulatory-type fees to 3 be easily identified in one document, as opposed to being scattered throughout City Code. In addition, a 4 fee schedule adopted on an annual basis provides the Council the opportunity to review fees for services 5 in a comprehensive manner. 6 7 Over the past several months, Staff has reviewed the direct and indirect costs of the City’s regulatory 8 functions, to determine whether fee adjustments are necessary or if new fees should be established to 9 better define the cost of specific services. 10 11 Based on this analysis, Staff recommends adjustments to the following existing fees: 12 13  General Business Licenses & Permit Fees (various) 14  Building Permit & Plan Review Fees (various) 15  Miscellaneous Community Development Fees (various) 16  Park Dedication Fee 17 18 Staff is also recommending the establishment of several new fees. They include: 19 20  Private hydrant inspections: $50-$100+ (PW Dept.) 21  Stormwater impact fee (non-residential): $22.50/cubic foot (PW Dept.) 22  Sump pump waiver fee: $50 (PW Dept.) 23  Sump pump surcharge fee: $50 (PW Dept.) 24  Curb stop turn on/turn off: $50 (PW Dept.) 25  Erosion control inspection permit-shore land district: $300 (PW Dept.) 26  Erosion control inspection permit-residential remodel: $300 (PW Dept.) 27  Erosion control inspection permit-permit renewal: $150 (PW Dept.) 28  Erosion control escrow fee-residential remodel: $1,000 (PW Dept.) 29  Fire plan review fee: varied amount (Fire Dept.) 30  Rental registration late renewal fee: $35 (CD Dept.) 31  Vacant building registration fee: $50-75 (CD Dept.) 32  Residential property improvement fee (driveway/shed): $75 (CD Dept.) 33  Parking lot repair fee: $250 (CD Dept.) 34 Page 2 of 5  Verification fee (electrician license/sewer & water bond): $1-$5 (CD Dept.) 35  Landscape improvement permit: $75 (CD Dept.) 36  PUD-sketch plan: $350-$800 (CD Dept.) 37  PUD-Concept Plan: $800-$4,200 (CD Dept.) 38  PUD-Final Plan: $1,200-$1,800 (CD Dept.) 39 40 Departmental Staff will be on hand at the Council meeting to address the new fees. 41 42 All of the Fee Schedule changes are highlighted in yellow on the attached Fee Schedule, and generally 43 reflect the need to recover increased regulatory costs, staff time related to special requests, or 44 development-related impacts on city services. 45 46 The attached files contain the draft ordinance and ordinance summary to be considered at the Council 47 meeting. 48 49 POLICY OBJECTIVE 50 Adopting an annual fee schedule is consistent with governmental best practices and ensures that the City’s 51 regulatory functions are properly funded. 52 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 53 Based on the recommended fee adjustments, it is projected that revised fees will generate revenues 54 sufficient to cover the City’s added regulatory costs. The applicable revenues and expenditures have been 55 incorporated into the 2017 Budget. 56 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 57 Staff recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance and ordinance summary amending Chapter 58 314.05 adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule. 59 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 60 Motion #1: Approve the attached ordinance amending Chapter 314.05 adopting the 2017 Fee 61 Schedule. 62 63 Motion #2: Approve the attached ordinance summary. 64 65 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Ordinance adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule B: Ordinance Summary C: Proposed 2017 Fee Schedule 66 Page 3 of 5 Attachment A 67 68 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 69 ORDINANCE NO. ____ 70 71 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 314.05, FEE SCHEDULE 72 ADOPTING THE 2017 FEE SCHEDULE 73 74 75 THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE HEREBY ORDAINS: 76 77 SECTION 1. Purpose. The City of Roseville annually adopts a Fee Schedule which establishes the 78 fees and charges for service for the City’s regulatory functions. The presence of a fee schedule allows 79 regulatory-type fees to be easily identified in one document, as opposed to being scattered throughout 80 City Code. In addition, a fee schedule adopted on an annual basis provides the City Council the 81 opportunity to review fees for services in a comprehensive manner. 82 83 SECTION 2. Other Fee References 84 By enacting this ordinance, all fee amounts previously established and contained herein are hereby 85 amended as submitted. 86 87 SECTION 3. Authority 88 The authority to enact the fees identified herein is established by City Code. 89 90 SECTION 4. Penalty 91 Failure to pay the fees identified herein is subject to penalties and interest as established by City Code. 92 93 SECTION 5. Fee Schedule 94 The 2017 Fee Schedule is as shown in Exhibit A. 95 96 SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption and publication. 97 98 Passed this 5th day of December, 2016. 99 100 101 102 Page 4 of 5 Ordinance: Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule 103 104 105 106 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 107 108 109 BY: ________________________ 110 Daniel J. Roe, Mayor 111 112 ATTEST: 113 114 115 ________________________________ 116 Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 Seal 125 126 Page 5 of 5 Attachment B 127 City of Roseville 128 129 ORDINANCE SUMMARY NO. ___ 130 131 132 AMENDING CHAPTER 314.05, FEE SCHEDULE 133 ADOPTING THE 2017 FEE SCHEDULE 134 135 136 The following is the official summary of Ordinance NO. ______ approved by the City Council of 137 Roseville on December 5, 2016: 138 139 An Ordinance amending Chapter 314.05 of the Roseville City Code adopting the 2017 Fee 140 Schedule which establishes the fees and charges for service for the City’s regulatory 141 functions. 142 143 A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours in the 144 office of the City Manager at the Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. 145 A copy of the ordinance and summary shall also be posted on the web page of the City of Roseville 146 (www.ci.roseville.mn.us). 147 148 149 150 Attest: _____________________________________ 151 Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager 152 153 154 2017 Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2017 Prepared by the Department of Finance Attachment C Table of Contents Page General Business Licenses and Permit Fees .............................................................................. 2-6 Administrative Fines ......................................................................................................................7 Building Permit & Plan Review Fees ...................................................................................... 8-16 Electrical Permits ................................................................................................................... 17-18 Attachment C General Business Licenses and Permit Fees City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Amusement device (per machine)303 15.00$ 15.00$ Benches in right-of-way 703 50.00 50.00 Assessment searches: Deferred or pending n/a - - Historical n/a 100.00 100.00 Bowling alley: First alley n/a 70.00 70.00 Each additional alley n/a 20.00 20.00 Burial Permit 401 100.00 100.00 Cigarettes, sale of 306 200.00 200.00 Compost/woodchip delivery from Compost Site n/a 40.00 40.00 Construction noise variance 405 450.00 450.00 Conversation parlors 308 10,000.00 10,000.00 Copy charges per page n/a 0.25 0.25 CPR Training charge per student n/a 80.00 80.00 Curb stop turn on/off fee n/a - 50.00 Daycare facility inspection fee n/a 40.00 40.00 Dog and cat license: 2 Year: sterilized 501 10.00 10.00 2 Year: sterilized with micro chip 501 5.00 5.00 2 Year: non-sterilized 501 35.00 35.00 2 Year: non-sterilized with micro chip 501 25.00 25.00 Lifetime: sterilized 501 30.00 30.00 Lifetime: sterilized with micro chip 501 5.00 5.00 Lifetime: non-sterilized 501 150.00 150.00 Lifetime: non-sterilized with micro chip 501 100.00 100.00 Duplicate or address change 501 5.00 5.00 Special multiple: 2 Year 501 40.00 40.00 Dog kennels 501 75.00 75.00 DVD Copy n/a 5.00 5.00 Encroachment agreement application fee n/a 300.00 300.00 Erosion control escrow fee (per acre): Standard 1017 3,000.00 3,000.00 Residential remodel (less than 1/4 acre)1017 - 1,000.00 Erosion control inspection permit: Less than 1 acre 1017 625.00 625.00 1 to 5 acres 1017 900.00 900.00 More than 5 acres 1017 1,400.00 1,400.00 Shoreland district < 5,000 sq. ft.1017 - 300.00 Residential remodel (less than 1/4 acre)1017 - 300.00 Permit renewal (residential remodel)1017 - 150.00 Attachment C General Business Licenses and Permit Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Erosion control permit renewal: Less than 1 acre 1017 220.00$ 220.00$ 1 to 5 acres 1017 320.00 320.00 More than 5 acres 1017 480.00 480.00 Excavation, grading, and surfacing 705 n/a n/a See separate section below False alarm fees: Fire: Third false alarm 506 300.00 300.00 Fourth 506 400.00 400.00 Fifth and all subsequent alarms 506 500.00 500.00 Construction-related n/a 150.00 150.00 False alarm fees: Police: Third false alarm 506 100.00 100.00 Fourth 506 200.00 200.00 Fifth 506 300.00 300.00 Sixth 506 400.00 400.00 Seventh and all subsequent alarms 506 500.00 500.00 Fertilizer: Sale of 408 30.00 30.00 Applicator 408 100.00 100.00 Firearms, sale of 310 30.00 30.00 Fire Inspection: Commercial Vent Hood 902 25.00 93.00 Fire rescue and extrication fee n/a 400.00 400.00 Fire safety training (per hour)n/a 80.00 80.00 Fireworks, sale of consumer: Existing retail n/a 100.00 100.00 Stand-alone, temporary 902 350.00 450.00 Fuel storage tank removal inspection 902 100.00 170.00 Underground tanks Game room 303 175.00 175.00 Gasoline stations 310 130.00 130.00 Gas pumps (private business)310 60.00 60.00 Horse 501 5.00 5.00 Hospitals-veterinary 310 80.00 80.00 Lawful gambling: One-time event 304 25.00 25.00 On-going premise permit: gross sales %304 3% 3% On-going premise permit: net profits %304 10% 10% Attachment C General Business Licenses and Permit Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Liquor Licenses: On-sale intoxicating liquor license 302 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ On-sale wine license (75 seats or less) 302 750.00 750.00 On-sale wine license (75+ seats)302 1,500.00 1,500.00 Temporary: on-sale (3 days)302 50.00 50.00 Temporary: on-sale in Cental Park 302 20.00 20.00 Sunday on-sale 302 200.00 200.00 Special club: 51-200 members 302 300.00 300.00 Special club: 201-500 members 302 500.00 500.00 Special club: 501-1,000 members 302 650.00 650.00 Special club: 1,001-2,000 members 302 800.00 800.00 Special club: 2,001-4,000 members 302 1,000.00 1,000.00 Special club: 4,001-6,000 members 302 2,000.00 2,000.00 Special club: more than 6,000 members 302 3,000.00 3,000.00 On-sale brewery taproom 302 750.00 750.00 On-sale microdistillery cocktail room 302 750.00 750.00 Off-sale intoxication liquor license 302 300.00 300.00 Off-sale intoxication liquor license 302 200.00 200.00 See comment 'A' below Sale outside of premises 302 25.00 25.00 Investigation fee 302 300.00 300.00 Massage therapist 309 100.00 100.00 Massage therapy business establishment: License 309 300.00 300.00 First-time applicant background check 309 150.00 150.00 Open burning permit n/a 90.00 120.00 Plus $0.50 per required notice Park dedication fee: Residential (per unit)1103 3,500.00 4,000.00 Non-residential (fair-market value %)1103 7% 10%See comment 'B' below Pathway patching fee: Concrete sidewalk (2 panels)n/a 675.00 675.00 Bituminous (12' x 8')n/a 500.00 550.00 Pawn shop license 311 10,000.00 10,000.00 Pawn shop + precious meter dealer license 311 13,000.00 13,000.00 Pawn shop transaction fee (per transaction)n/a 2.90 2.90 Pool and billiards: First table 303 70.00 70.00 Each additional table 303 20.00 20.00 Precious metal dealler 311 10,000.00 10,000.00 Private hydrant inspections: 1-10 hydrants 801 -$ 50.00$ 11-20 hydrants 801 - 100.00 > 20 hydrants 801 - 100.00 + $10 for each > 20 hydrants Attachment C General Business Licenses and Permit Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Public improvement contract application fee n/a 550.00 550.00 See comment 'C' below Recycling contractor 403 125.00 125.00 Rental licensing: Multi family (per unit)908 20.00$ 20.00$ + $102.00 per building Multi family: reinstatement 908 102.00 102.00 Reinspection fee (per unit)908 66.00 66.00 After 1st inspection Failure to renew within 30 days of exp.908 500.00 500.00 Fee doubles every two weeks Failure to submit within 60 days of exp.908 - 500.00 Fee doubles every two weeks Fee appeal to City Council 908 50.00 50.00 Rental registration: Housing 907 35.00 35.00 Includes technology fee Mid-year (Jan 1-Jun 30)907 17.50 17.50 Includes technology fee Late renewal fee 907 - 35.00 Administrative fine (per unit)907 100.00 100.00 Right of way permits: Hole (per hole)707 400.00 400.00 Trench 707 400.00 400.00 + $0.40 / lineal foot of trench Boring 707 400.00 400.00 + $0.40 / lineal foot of boring Non-excavation (obstruction)707 50.00 50.00 + $0.06 / lineal foot Roll-off container 707 50.00 50.00 Extension 707 25.00 25.00 + $25.00 per week of extension Penalty 707 2 times amount of standard permit Curb cut 707 50.00 50.00 Sewer connection fees 802 n/a n/a See separate section below Sewer usage fees 802 n/a n/a Established separately Soil contamination fee (per cubic yard)406 1.00 1.00 max $300 Solid waste hauler license 402 125.00 125.00 Stormwater drainage fees 803 n/a n/a Established separately Stormwater impact fee (per cubic foot)1017 - 22.50 Stormwater residential permit: Initial n/a 250.00 250.00 Renewal (5 year term)n/a 100.00 100.00 Street patching fee: without curb n/a 650.00 700.00 with curb n/a 1,300.00 1,300.00 Sump pump waiver fee 802 - 50.00 Sump pump surcharge fee (per month)802 - 50.00 Technology Fee (building)n/a - 2% of permit or license fee Theaters (per viewing screen)310 70.00 70.00 Tree planting and removal 706 n/a n/a Established separately Utility service location fee n/a 100.00 100.00 Attachment C General Business Licenses and Permit Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Vehicle impound fee (per day)n/a 20.00 20.00 Water connection fees 801 n/a n/a See separate section below Water meter deposit 801 n/a n/a Established separately Water tower permit: private use 801 n/a n/a Established separately Water usage fees 801 n/a n/a Established separately Well permit 801 n/a n/a Established separately Wireless tower lease agreement 1205 n/a n/a Negotiated Comments: (a)If MN Statute 340A.408, subd 3(c) are met (b)Calculation is based on 10% of the estimated fair market value of unimproved land, as determined by the Ramsey County Assessor's Office on the date of approval of the plat or subdivision. (c)In addition to the $550 base fee, an escrow fee of 4% of the total improvement cost is also collected Attachment C Administrative Fines City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Alcohol and tobacco Sales: Purchase, posession: underage n/a 150.00$ 150.00$ Lending ID to underage person n/a 100.00 100.00 Selling tobacco: underage n/a 200.00 200.00 Selling alcohol: underage n/a 250.00 250.00 License holder n/a 300.00 300.00 Other violation n/a 100.00 100.00 Animals: Vicious animal n/a 50.00 50.00 Barking dog n/a 50.00 50.00 Animal at large n/a 50.00 50.00 Other violation n/a 50.00 50.00 Fires: No open fires n/a 25.00 25.00 Fire code n/a 100.00 100.00 Parking: snowbird n/a 25.00 25.00 Miscellaneous: City Code n/a 100.00 75.00 Consuming alcohol: unauthorized places n/a 250.00 250.00 Discharge, display of weapon n/a 250.00 250.00 Expired license plates n/a 35.00 35.00 Failure to apply for license n/a 50.00 50.00 Fill permits n/a 100.00 100.00 Fireworks: use, possession, sale n/a 250.00 250.00 Golf cart / ATV violation n/a 50.00 50.00 Illegal dumping n/a 150.00 150.00 Land use n/a 100.00 100.00 Licenses (not occurring elsewhere)n/a 50.00 50.00 Missing plate/tab n/a 35.00 35.00 Noise complaint n/a 250.00 250.00 Park ordinance violation n/a 25.00 25.00 Peddling n/a 75.00 75.00 Property nuisance: Repeat 511 250.00 250.00 See Comment 'A' below Public nuisance n/a 100.00 100.00 Regulated businesses n/a 100.00 100.00 Seat belts n/a 25.00 25.00 Signs n/a 50.00 50.00 Snowmobiles (use on public property)n/a 50.00 50.00 Tampering with civil defense system n/a 250.00 250.00 Trespassing n/a 150.00 150.00 Wetland / Shore land n/a 100.00 100.00 Comments: (a)Beginning with the 3rd call, the cost is $250 plus the costs related to the call up to $2,000 Attachment C Building Permit and Plan Review Fees City Code Sections; 307, 801, 802, 901, 1014. ** All permits, licenses, fees, & fines are subject to a technology fee. Building Permit Fee – Community Development Permit fee to be based on job cost valuation. The determination of value or valuation shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total of all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. Plan Review Fee: When a building permit is required and a plan is required to be submitted, a plan checking fee shall be paid. Plan checking fees for all buildings shall be sixty five percent (65%) of the building permit fee as set forth in Section 901.06 of this chapter, except as modified in M.S.B.C. Section 1300. (Ord. 1110, 4-13-1992) The plan review fees specified are separate fees from the permit fees and are in addition to the permit fees. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items an additional plan review fee shall be charged. Expiration of plan review: Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days on request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended more than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. Refund Policy The building official may authorize refunding of any fee paid hereunder pursuant to the established fee policy of the Community Development department. Investigation Fee: Work without a Permit Whenever any work for which a permit is required from the city has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this Fee Schedule. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of State and City Code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. Attachment C Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Building Permit - Community Development: $1 - $500 valuation (total valuation)31.00$ 31.00$ $501 - $2,000 valuation 31.00 31.00 For the first $500 value; plus $4.00 for each add'l $100 value or fraction thereof $2,001 - $25,000 valuation 83.50 83.50 For the first $2,000 value; plus $16.55 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $25,001 - $50,000 valuation 464.15 464.15 For the first $25,000 value; plus $12.00 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $50,001 - $100,000 valuation 764.15 764.15 For the first $50,000 value; plus $8.45 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $101,001 - $500,000 valuation 1,186.65 1,186.65 For the first $100,000 value; plus $6.75 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $500,001 - $1,000,000 valuation 3,886.65 3,886.65 For the first $500,000 value; plus $5.50 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $1,000,000 + valuation 6,636.65 6,636.65 For the first $1,000,000 value; plus $4.50 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof Inspections outside of normal business hours 68.50 69.50 Hourly rate Re-inspection fees (hourly)68.50 69.50 Per State Building Code Misc. inspection/investigation fees (hourly)68.50 69.50 Add'l plan review fee required by revisions 68.50 69.50 Hourly rate Building Permit - Engineering: $1 - $500 valuation 5.00$ 5.00$ $501 - $2,000 valuation 5.00 5.00 $2,001 - $25,000 valuation 25.00 25.00 $25,001 - $50,000 valuation 50.00 50.00 $50,001 - $100,000 valuation 75.00 75.00 $100,001 - $500,000 valuation 100.00 100.00 $500,001 - $1,000,000 valuation 200.00 200.00 $1,000,000 +300.00 300.00 Demolition Permit Fee - Community Development Tenant improvement/remodeling 75.00$ 75.00$ Prior to building permit Structures not connected to utilities 96.00 96.00 Structures connected to city utilities: residential 163.00 163.00 Strucutres connected to city utilities: commercial 425.00 425.00 Attachment C Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued) Electrical Permit Fee: Set through yearly contract with Contract Electrical Inspector. Fire Safety Inspection Fee: City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Fire Safety Inspection Fee 8% 8%% of building permit fee Fire Plan Review Fee: New Construction (hourly)- 93.00 Fire Plan Review Fee: Existing ** Plan Review Fee will be 65% of the calculation below ** $1 - $2,000 valuation - 93.00 Per Hour $2,001 - $25,000 valuation - 93.00 For the first $2,000 value; plus $21.00 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $25,001 - $50,000 valuation - 576.00 For the first $25,000 value; plus $15.40 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $50,001 - $100,000 valuation - 961.00 For the first $50,000 value; plus $10.70 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $101,001 - $500,000 valuation - 1,496.00 For the first $100,000 value; plus $8.60 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $500,001 - $1,000,000 valuation - 4,936.00 For the first $500,000 value; plus $7.10 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof $1,000,000 + valuation - 8,486.00 For the first $1,000,000 value; plus $5.70 for each add'l $1,000 value or fraction thereof Attachment C Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued) Grading Plan Review & Permit Fees: City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Grading Plan Review Fee - Community Development: 50 cubic yards or less 80.00$ 80.00$ 51 - 10,000 cubic yards 160.00 160.00 For the first 1,000 cubic yards; plus $10.00 for each add'l 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 10,001 - 100,000 cubic yards 318.00 318.00 For the first 10,000 cubic yards; plus $5.00 for each add'l 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 100,000 + cubic yards 848.00 848.00 For the first 100,000 cubic yards; plus $10.00 for each add'l 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof Grading Plan Review Fee - Engineering: 50 cubic yards or less 25.00$ 25.00$ 51 - 10,000 cubic yards 25.00 25.00 10,001 - 100,000 cubic yards 50.00 50.00 100,000 + cubic yards 75.00 75.00 Grading Permit Fee - Community Development: 50 cubic yards or less 80.00$ 80.00$ 51 - 1,000 cubic yards 106.00 106.00 For the first 100 cubic yards; plus $20.00 for each add'l 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof 1,001 - 10,000 cubic yards 318.00 318.00 For the first 1,000 cubic yards; plus $32.00 for each add'l 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 10,001 - 100,000 cubic yards 636.00 636.00 For the first 10,000 cubic yards; plus $104.00 for each add'l 10,000 cu. yards or fraction thereof 100,000 + cubic yards 1,590.00 1,590.00 For the first 100,000 cubic yards; plus $84.00 for each add'l 10,000 cu. yards or fraction thereof Grading Permit Fee - Engineering: 50 cubic yards or less 25.00$ 25.00$ 51 - 1,000 cubic yards 25.00 25.00 1,001 - 10,000 cubic yards 50.00 50.00 10,001 - 100,000 cubic yards 75.00 75.00 100,000 + cubic yards 100.00 100.00 Attachment C Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments House Moving Permit Fee: Over private property only 95.00 $ 95.00 $ Over public streets 137.00 137.00 Investigation fee (hourly)68.50 69.50 Manufactured Home Permit Fee (new installation)275.00 275.00 Mechanical Permit Fee - Residential: Air conditioning: new 49.00 49.00 Air conditioning: replacement 61.00 61.00 Warm air furnace: new 102.00 102.00 Warm air furnace: replacement 61.00 61.00 Hot water boilers: new 102.00 102.00 Hot water boilers: replacement 61.00 61.00 Unit heaters 61.00 61.00 Swimming pool heaters 61.00 61.00 Misc. work & gas piping 1.28% of job cost Minimum fee 61.00 61.00 Gas fireplace 61.00 61.00 In floor heat 85.00 85.00 Mechanical Permit Fee - Commercial (All)1.28% of job cost $61.00 minimum fee Plan Review Fee:65% 65%% of building permit fee Plumbing Permit Fee: Minimum fee 61.00 61.00 Additional for each fixture opening 10.00 10.00 Backflow prevention device 28.00 10.00 Miscellaneous work 1.28% of job cost Residential Property Improvement Fee: Backflow prevention investigation fee - 75.00 Driveway permits: residential replacement 55.00 55.00 Driveway permits: residential expansion - 75.00 Fence permits: residential 52.00 52.00 Fence permits: commercial Per Building Permit Fee Schedule Shed permits (residential < 120 square feet)52.00 52.00 Shed permits (residential 121-200 square feet)- 75.00 Drain tile 115.00 115.00 Other Per Building Permit Fee Schedule Attachment C Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Sewer Connection Permit Fee - Community Develop: Residential 96.00$ 96.00$ Commercial 303.00 303.00 Repair 61.00 61.00 Disconnect: residential 85.00 85.00 Disconnect: commercial 169.00 169.00 Sewer Connection/Inspection Permit Fee - Engineering: Connection: residential 25.00 25.00 Connection: commercial 75.00 75.00 Connection: repair 25.00 25.00 Connection: inspection 75.00 75.00 Disconnect: residential 25.00 25.00 Disconnect: commercial 75.00 75.00 Sign Permit Fee - Community Development: Permanent sign (minimum fee)55.00 55.00 Annual sign 100.00 100.00 Temporary sign 30.00 30.00 Attention-getting device 30.00 30.00 Swimming Pool Permit - Community Development: Residential: in-ground 212.00 212.00 Residential: seasonal 25.00 25.00 Commercial Per Building Permit Fee Schedule Swimming Pool Permit - Engineering 15.00 15.00 Water Connection Permit Fee - Community Develop: Residential 96.00 96.00 Commercial 303.00 303.00 Repair 61.00 61.00 Disconnect: residential 85.00 85.00 Disconnect: commercial 169.00 169.00 Water Connection/Inspection Permit Fee - Engineering: Connection: residential 25.00 25.00 Connection: commercial 75.00 75.00 Connection: repair 25.00 25.00 Connection: inspection 75.00 75.00 Disconnect: residential 25.00 25.00 Disconnect: commercial 75.00 75.00 Water Meter Program Fees - Engineering: Manual meter read surcharge 40.00 40.00 per quarter Non-standard water meter no-read fee 50.00 50.00 Denial of access to water meter 100.00 100.00 per quarter Attachment C Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Miscellaneous Building Permit Fees: Administrative fee for abatement 68.50 $ 125.00 $ Administrative fee: other zones 68.50 69.50 Administrative fee: R1 or R2 zones 68.50 69.50 Certificate of Occupancy: conditional 102.00 102.00 Special conditions Certificate of Occupancy: copy n/a n/a Certificate of Occupancy: full - 25.00 City contractor license fee 94.00 94.00 Construction deposit: commercial 4,000.00 5,000.00 Construction deposit: residential 800.00 1,000.00 Footing/foundation permits: commercial 477.00 477.00 Footing/foundation permits: residential 102.00 102.00 Garage only 56.00 56.00 Outdoor sales/display permit: 1-5 50.00 50.00 Outdoor sales/display permit: 6-10 occurrences 75.00 75.00 Outdoor sales/display permit: 11 or more 200.00 200.00 Outdoor storage/display permit: 1-5 50.00 50.00 Outdoor storage/display permit: 6-10 occurrences 100.00 100.00 Outdoor storage/display permit: 11 or more 200.00 200.00 Outdoor temporary event: 1-5 occurrences 50.00 50.00 Outdoor temporary event: 6-10 occurrences 75.00 75.00 Outdoor temporary event: 11 or more occurrences 200.00 200.00 Parking lot repair - 250.00 See Comment 'A' Replacement inspection card 21.00 21.00 Residential siding replacement fee 92.00 92.00 Residential window replacement (minimum)92.00 92.00 Residential wood burning fireplace 92.00 92.00 Re-stamping job site plan sets 31.00 31.00 Roofing fee (residential)102.00 102.00 SAC administration fee 36.00 36.00 SAC research fee: hourly Rate 68.50 69.50 Solar panel/renewable energy equipment install 1.28 % of job cost or $160 minimum fee Verification fee: age of structure on property 5.00 5.00 Verification fee: electrician/plumber state - 1.00 Verification fee: lead abatement certificate 5.00 5.00 Verification fee: sewer/water bond certificate - 1.00 Verification fee: state contracting license 5.00 5.00 Comments: (a)Fee amount if < 25% of total surface is replaced not exposing base, otherwise add'l fees are imposed Attachment C Community Development Department Miscellaneous Fees City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Accessory Dwelling Unit permit n/a 100.00 $ 100.00 $ Administrative deviation n/a 110.00 110.00 See Comment 'E' Attorney, consultant review & analysis n/a 100% of direct cost billed to applicant City Address Book (11x17) – existing PDF maps n/a 100.00 100.00 See Comment 'A' Comprehensive Plan – amendment n/a 925.00 1,725.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Comprehensive Plan on CD n/a 20.00 20.00 See Comment 'A' Conditional Use: Residential n/a 510.00 510.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Commercial n/a 775.00 775.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Copying (per sheet)n/a 0.25 0.25 Hardscape improvement permit - 75.00 Interim Use n/a 675.00 1,475.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Interim Use extension n/a 225.00 1,025.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Maps – 8 ½ x 11 (b & w) – existing PDF maps n/a No charge See Comment 'C' Maps – 8 ½ x 11 (color) – existing PDF maps n/a 1.00 1.00 See Comment 'A' Maps – 11 x 17 (color) – existing PDF maps n/a 2.00 2.00 See Comment 'A' Maps – 17 x 22 (color) – existing PDF maps n/a 10.00 10.00 See Comment 'A' Maps – 22 x 34 (color) – existing PDF maps n/a 20.00 20.00 See Comment 'A' Maps – 34 x 44 (color) – existing PDF maps n/a 40.00 40.00 See Comment 'A' Master Sign Plan: Residential/institutional n/a 250.00 250.00 Commercial n/a 350.00 350.00 Planned Unit Development: Amendment n/a 410.00 $ 1,210.00 $ See Comment 'E' Sketch plan PUD open house application fee n/a - 800.00 Sketch plan PUD application fee n/a - 350.00 PUD Concept Plan: open house application n/a - 800.00 PUD Concept Plan: application fee n/a - 2,500.00 PUD Concept Plan: escrow n/a - 4,200.00 PUD Final Plan: application fee n/a - 1,200.00 PUD Final Plan: escrow fee n/a - 1,800.00 Planning Commission agendas/year (mailed)n/a 10.00 10.00 See Comment 'A' Planning Commission minutes/year (mailed)n/a 15.00 15.00 See Comment 'A' Public Financing & Business Subsidy: Application fee n/a - 1,500.00 Nonrefundable Escrow n/a - 15,000.00 Rezoning of project site or parcel n/a 1,675.00 1,475.00 Staff research time (per hour)n/a 68.50 69.50 Attachment C Community Development Department Miscellaneous Fees (continued) City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Subdivision: Escrow (minimum)n/a 2,500.00 2,500.00 See Comment 'D' Minor Subdivision n/a 675.00 675.00 See Comment 'E' Escrow data collection, analysis (per hour) n/a 68.50 69.50 Preliminary Plat n/a 575.00 1,375.00 See Comment 'E' Final Plat n/a 510.00 510.00 See Comment 'E' Tree preservation: Restoration & Landscape Plan Application n/a 50.00 50.00 See Comment 'E' Restoration & Landscape Plan Escrow n/a TBD 650.00 Variance: Residential n/a 360.00 360.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Non Residential n/a 475.00 475.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Variance appeal fee: Residential n/a 150.00 150.00 Commercial n/a 300.00 300.00 Zoning Code text amendment n/a 625.00 1,425.00 See Comment 'B' & 'E' Zoning Code on CD n/a 20.00 20.00 See Comment 'A' Zoning compliance letter: data collection & analysis n/a 68.50 69.50 Per hour (1 hour minimum) Comments: (a)Item is free on City website, and available for review at City Hall and Roseville Library. (b)If multiple requests (e.g. subdivision, variance), for the same application, the most expensive permit application fee is charged (c)Maps/data created as a custom request are charged time and materials rate. GIS Coordinator at 1.9 times hourly rate (d)Amount listed under the PUD and Subdivision Escrow is the minimum amount required for the application. A higher amount, as determined by the City, may be required for projects that will take a significant amount of time. City Attorney costs shall be paid as part of this escrow. (e)Technology fee included in amount Attachment C Electrical Permit Fees – Community Development A. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration or repair is limited to one inspection only: City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Minimum fee n/a 40.00$ 40.00$ B. Services, changes of service, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately: City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Services, changes for services: 0 to 300 amp n/a 50.00$ 50.00$ 301 to 400 amp n/a 58.00 58.00 401 to 500 amp n/a 72.00 72.00 501 to 600 amp n/a 86.00 86.00 601 to 800 amp n/a 114.00 114.00 801 to 1,000 amp n/a 142.00 142.00 1,001 to 1,100 amp n/a 156.00 156.00 1,101 to 1,200 amp n/a 170.00 170.00 Add $14 for each additional 100 amps C. Circuits, installation of additions, alterations, or repairs of each circuit or sub-feeder shall be computed separately, including circuits fed from sub-feeders and including the equipment served, except as provided for in (D) through (K): City 2016 2017 Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Circuits, changes for services: 0 to 30 amp n/a 8.00$ 8.00$ 31 to 100 amp n/a 10.00 10.00 101 to 200 amp n/a 15.00 15.00 201 to 300 amp n/a 20.00 20.00 301 to 400 amp n/a 25.00 25.00 401 to 500 amp n/a 30.00 30.00 501 to 600 amp n/a 35.00 35.00 601 to 700 amp n/a 40.00 40.00 Add $5 for each additional 100 amps Attachment C Electrical Permit Fees: Community Development (continued) City 2016 2017 Electrical Permit Fee Description Code Amount Amount Comments Residential panel replacement n/a 100.00$ 100.00$ Residential sub panel n/a 40.00 40.00 Minimum fee: Inspection only n/a 40.00 40.00 Plus $1 State surcharge Rough-in & final n/a 80.00 80.00 Plus $1 State surcharge Single-family dwelling/townhouse < 200 amps *n/a 175.00 175.00 Plus $1 State surcharge Apartment buildings (per unit)n/a 70.00 70.00 Excludes cover svc, unit feeders & house panels Swimming pool (up to two inspections)n/a 80.00 80.00 Additions, remodels, basement additions n/a 80.00 80.00 Up to 10 circuits & 2 inspections Accessory structure: Panel n/a 50.00 50.00 Per circuit n/a 8.00 8.00 Inspection n/a 80.00 80.00 Traffic signals (per standard)n/a 7.00 7.00 Street & parking lot lights (per standard)n/a 4.00 4.00 Transformers & Generators: Up to 10 KVA n/a 10.00 10.00 11-75 KVA n/a 40.00 40.00 76-299 KVA n/a 60.00 60.00 299+ KVA n/a 150.00 150.00 Retro-fit lighting (per fixture)n/a 0.65 0.65 Sign transformer (each)n/a 8.00 8.00 Remote control & signal circuits (per device)n/a 0.75 0.75 Re-inspection fee (in addition to others)n/a 40.00 40.00 Comments: *Fee covers a maximum of three inspections **Permit fee is doubled if work is started before permit is issued Note: Minimum fee electrical permits are not refundable Attachment C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/2016 Item No.: 10.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Request to Amend City Code Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling Page 1 of 5 BACKGROUND 1 In a letter dated October 4, 2016 (Attachment B), the Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association 2 (RAYHA) issued a formal request for the City to consider amending City Code Chapter 304: Lawful 3 Gambling; to allow local non-profit organizations to have up to three separate locations within city limits 4 to conduct lawful gambling activities. The current Code allows for only two locations. 5 6 The City Council held an initial discussion on RAYHA’s request on October 24th but did not take any 7 action. The Council did ask Staff to address two general inquiries at a subsequent meeting; whether an 8 establishment (restaurant) could have more than one organization conducting lawful gambling activities, 9 and a more detailed list of advantages and disadvantages of making the change. 10 11 Staff has confirmed that multiple organizations can conduct lawful gambling activities at the same 12 establishment. However, there are practical limitations that would likely limit the number of 13 organizations sharing a particular site. 14 15 Perhaps the larger issue of enacting the requested change are the potential benefits and impacts to 16 Roseville-based organizations. RAYHA largely addressed the benefits to their organization at the 17 October 24th meeting when they identified the following: 18 19  Greater profit levels and subsequent lower costs for their members 20  All profits are spent locally 21  Profits at the Bingo Hall are declining, and a third location would help offset this impact 22 23 Staff would add that RAYHA is experienced in lawful gambling activities and the regulatory 24 requirements that accompany it. They are also well-organized, which leaves them favorably positioned 25 to replicate their success at a third location. 26 27 The General Manager of Joe Senser’s also spoke to the advantages to his establishment of having the 28 ordinance change enacted. Specifically, an expected increase in customers that would come from 29 RAYHA as opposed to their current tenant (MN Brass). 30 31 32 Page 2 of 5 The disadvantages to enacting the proposed ordinance change are more conceptual. As noted at the 33 October 24th meeting the original purpose of limiting the number of locations was to ensure that no single 34 organization would receive a disproportionate share of the lawful gambling income that might be derived 35 within the community. 36 37 Allowing an organization to have multiple sites could very well limit prospective opportunities for other 38 Roseville-based organizations. Especially considering that the Code further established a maximum of 39 eight lawful gambling locations in the city. However, in the absence of other organizations stepping 40 forward to conduct site-specific lawful gambling activities, the negative impact remains conceptual. 41 Should the Council enact the requested ordinance change, it could mitigate this impact in the future by 42 simply changing the self-imposed limit of allowing only eight locations. 43 44 Summary of Lawful Gambling Proceeds 45 In an effort to provide the Council with a broader perspective on the amount of lawful gambling monies 46 being raised, Staff has prepared the following tables depicting the proceeds (income) from 2015 and 2011 47 respectively. 48 49 50 2015 % of Organization Location Proceeds Total B-Dale Club B-Dale Club 240,815$ 1.7% MN Brass Joe Senser's 530,854 3.8% Destination Education Ol' Mexico 1,046,849 7.5% VFW VFW 1,309,777 9.4% American Legion American Legion 1,455,712 10.4% Midway Speedskating Bingo Hall 3,488,256 24.9% RAYHA Bingo Hall, Grumpy's 5,911,963 42.3% 13,984,226$ 51 52 53 2011 % of Organization Location Proceeds Total B-Dale Club B-Dale Club 147,965$ 1.4% NSYA Ol' Mexico 238,512 2.3% MN Brass Joe Senser's 412,535 4.0% VFW VFW 1,069,502 10.4% American Legion American Legion 1,395,851 13.6% Midway Speedskating Bingo Hall 3,398,655 33.0% RAYHA Bingo Hall 3,638,250 35.3% 10,301,270$ 54 55 As shown in the tables, total lawful gambling proceeds rose from $10.3 million in 2011 to $14.0 million 56 in 2015, an increase of 36%. It should be noted that the majority of these proceeds are used to pay for 57 prizes, federal state and local taxes, rent, compensation, etc. On average, only about 6% of all proceeds 58 are retained for organizational programs. 59 60 City Staff will be available during the meeting to address any Council inquiries. An ordinance is attached 61 in the event the Council wants to enact the requested change. 62 63 Page 3 of 5 POLICY OBJECTIVE 64 Not applicable. 65 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 66 Not applicable. 67 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 68 Not applicable. 69 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 70 71 1)Motion to approve or reject the requested ordinance amending City Code Chapter 30472 2)If applicable, motion to approve the ordinance summary73 74 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Requested Ordinance and Ordinance Summary B: Letter from RAYHA Requesting an Amendment to Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling C: City Code Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling 75 Page 4 of 5 CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDINANCE NO._____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE THREE CHAPTER 304 TO ALLOW ROSEVILLE-BASED ORGANIZATIONS TO CONDUCT LAWFUL-GAMBLING ACTIVITIES AT UP TO THREE LOCATIONS WITHIN CITY LIMITS THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS: SECTION 1: Title Three, Chapter 304 of the Roseville City Code is amended to read as follows: 304.02: NUMBER OF LICENSES AND PERMITS: 76 A.No organization licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 may conduct lawful77 gambling at more than two three locations within the city, except any organization that does not78 conduct bingo and has prior to April 1, 1992, operated lawfully at more than one location, may79 continue to operate at the locations licensed as of that date. (Ord. 1138, 4-25-1994) (Ord. 1412, 7-80 11-2011)81 SECTION 2: Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Roseville this 5th day of December, 2016. (SEAL) CITY OF ROSEVILLE BY: Daniel J. Roe, Mayor ATTEST Patrick Trudgen, City Manager 82 Attachment A Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDINANCE SUMMARY NO. ______ A SUMMARY OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE THREE, CHAPTER 304 The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. _____ approved by the City Council of the City of Roseville on December 5, 2016. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE THREE, CHAPTER 304 304.02 is amended to allow Roseville-based organizations to conduct lawful-gambling activities at up to three locations within City limits. A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours in the office of the City Manager at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN 55113. A copy of this ordinance can also be found on the web page of the City of Roseville (www.cityofroseville.com). Attest: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Attachment A October 4, 2016 The Honorable Dan Roe, Mayor of Roseville and Members of the Roseville City Council Roseville City Hall 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mayor Roe and Members of the City Council: We are writing to respectfully request a change to City Code Chapter 304, Section 304.02, Paragraph A. This paragraph currently reads: No organization licensed pursuant to Minneso,ta Statutes Chapter 349 may conduct lawful gambling at more than two locations within the city, except any organization that does not conduct bingo and has prior to April 1, 1992, operated lawfully at more than one location, may continue to operate at the locations licensed as of that date. (Ord. 1138, 4-25-1994} (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011} We would like to request that the number of locations where an organization is allowed to conduct lawful gambling be changed to three. As y()u are aware, The City of Roseville Rec department does not offer hockey as a rec sport opportunity for our youth. The Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association (RAYHA) directly benefits the City of Roseville. We are a true Roseville-based charity with the majority of our donations being spent directly in the City of Roseville. As a result of our gambling operations RAYHA has been able to introduce many outstanding programs including the 1st Skate Program. http://www.rosevillehockey.org/page/show/2047240-1st-skate program This program is specifically designed for kids & families who are unfamiliar with (or completely new to) hockey, and as we know the demographics of the City have changed dramatically in the past 5 years. In this program, RAYHA covers all the basics, and keeps the focus on FUN! The cost is only $25 and each player is provided a set of equipment to use during the program. We have 60 kids signed up this year. In addition, RAYHA provides an equipment loaner program to those in need of equipment and also provide scholarships where needed. In addition with the help of Matt Johnson, RAYHA started utilizing the outdoor rinks as a way of containing costs and introducing families to Roseville's great park system. We feel this change would be a great benefit for all as it would help ensure that any money earned in Roseville would stay in our community and help the people of our community. Sincerely, April Barash, Gambling Manager Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association Attachment B CHAPTER 304 LAWFUL GAMBLING SECTION: 304.01: Lawful Gambling Permitted 304.02: Number of Licenses and Permits 304.03: Approval of Licenses 304.04: Contributions 304.05: Law Enforcement and Administrative Costs 304.06: Gambling Exempt from State Licensing Requirements 304.07: Video Games of Chance 304.01: LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMITTED: Lawful gambling as regulated in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 is permitted in the City if the organization conducting such activities meets the following criteria: A.Is licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. B.Is a tax exempt organization pursuant to 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code or has a 501(c)application pending with the Internal Revenue Service. C.Maintains an address within the City. D.Has been in existence at least three consecutive years prior to the date it begins its gambling operations. E.Complies with all of the provisions of this Chapter. (Ord. 1114, 8-24-1992) 304.02: NUMBER OF LICENSES AND PERMITS: A.No organization licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 may conduct lawful gambling at more than two locations within the city, except any organization that does not conduct bingo and has prior to April 1, 1992, operated lawfully at more than one location, may continue to operate at the locations licensed as of that date. (Ord. 1138, 4-25-1994) (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011)B.The maximum number of bingo hall licenses and locations issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 within the City shall be one. Once the bingo hall license is issued by the City, it shall be limited to the location and to the owner specified on the license. Any change of location or ownership without the approval of the City shall result in the termination of the license. (Ord. 1244, 12-18-2000) (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011)C.The maximum number of licensees conducting gambling at the bingo hall license location described in subsection B of this section shall be five. D.The maximum number of premises permits issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 in addition to one bingo hall license described in subsection A of this section shall be eight. Except as provided in subsection E of this section the gambling allowed at thoselocations shall be confined to pull-tabs, paddlewheels, raffles, and tipboards as defined and Attachment C regulated under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349. (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011) E. An organization in existence and qualified under section 501(c)7 or section 501(c)19 of the internal revenue code and which had its principal place of business or place of conducting meetings in the City prior to and continuing since 1980 may be granted a premises permit to conduct all lawful gambling operations on their own premises. Such organizations are not eligible for a bingo hall license as provided in Minnesota statutes section 349.164 and may conduct gambling activities or bingo only on their own property. (Ord. 1138, 4-25-1994) (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011) 304.03: APPROVAL OF LICENSES: A. Required Documentation: Any organization applying to the Gambling Control Board for a premises permit, bingo hall license or for the renewal of the same to conduct lawful gambling in the city shall, within ten days of making such application, file the following with the City: 1. Application: A duplicate copy of the Gambling Control Board application along with all supporting documents submitted to the Gambling Control Board. 2. Corporate Documents: A copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the organization. 3. Officers and Directors: The names and addresses of all officers and directors of the organization. 4. Written Procedures: A copy of the organization's written procedures and/or criteria for distribution of funds derived from lawful gambling, its standardized application form and its written fiscal control procedures. 5. IRS Exempt Letter: A copy of the Internal Revenue Service's tax exempt letter. 6. Felony Conviction: Confirmation that no employee or principal officer of the organization has been convicted of a felony. No employee or organization whose principal officers or employees have a felony conviction shall be employed or retained in a gambling-related activity by any permitted organization. 7. Investigation Reports: A copy of all records, all testimony or other information submitted to the State of Minnesota or Federal Government as part of any previous or current investigation or inquiry on any matter related to gambling. B. Investigation: Upon receipt of the materials required by subsection A of this section, and not later than 60days from receipt of notice from the Gambling Control Board, City staff shall investigate the applicant and based upon said investigation, the City Council shall act on the application. C. Resolution: The action of the City Council to approve an application for a premises permit or bingo hall license within the city shall be by resolution. Failure to receive a majority affirmative vote of the City Council shall constitute a denial of the application. D. Additional Documents: Copies of any other reports or documents which are required to be subsequently filed by such organization with the Gambling Control Board, including monthly financial statements, shall be filed with the City within ten days of filing such materials with the Gambling Control Board. E. Compliance: to assure compliance with this Chapter, the City may require a premises permit holder or bingo hall licensee to provide copies of records as allowed under Minnesota Statutes. (Ord. 1327, 10-10-05) Attachment C F. Suspension: Approval of a premises permit issued by the City under any part of this Chapter may be suspended by the City for violation of Chapter or revoked or any renewal delayed, for failure to meet the qualifications set out in subsection A or a willful violation of any part of this Chapter or a failure to comply, for any reason, with any provision, guarantee or claim made in an applicant's original license application to either the City or the State of Minnesota. G. Liability of City: No license or permit issued by the City grants the licensee a property right or entitlement to the license or permit. The City may not issue, renew nor revoke the license or permit for any reason and will not incur liability for any damages including, but not limited to, direct, consequential or incidental damages, deprivation of property, loss of income, loss of profits or loss of livelihood. H. Employment of Certified Public Accountant: All organizations conducting Bingo at the Bingo hall in the City shall use a certified public accounting firm for all accounting, bookkeeping and tax preparation services related directly to lawful gambling and charged as an allowable expense of the gambling operation. All agreements providing for such services shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the City as part of the application for review by the City to determine compliance with local and State regulations and laws. Any such agreements entered into or modified after issuance of a license or permit shall be filed with the City prior to the new agreement or modification becoming effective. The initial approval and the continuance of a license or permit are contingent upon such agreements complying with this Chapter and State statutes and regulations. (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011) I. Management: All licensees and permittees in the City will assure continuous and active management of the gambling operation and will not delegate managerial responsibilities, will work continuously to operate in the most efficient manner to increase the amount of available lawful proceeds, will maintain the lowest possible costs and will encourage and use volunteers to the fullest extent possible. (Ord. 1114, 9-24-92) 304.04: CONTRIBUTIONS: A. Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the City shall contribute at least 10% of its net profits derived from lawful gambling in the City to a fund administered and regulated by the City. The City then shall make disbursements to the Roseville Community Fund, administered by the North Suburban Community Foundation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. This contribution shall be for the purposes defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349. The City's directive to the Roseville Community Fund, administered by the North Suburban Community Foundation, as to the use of the funds shall be made at the time of the City's adoption of its annual budget or any amendments thereto. (Ord. 1327, 10-10-05) (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011) B. Each organization conducting lawful gambling shall expend or contribute a minimum of 75% of its net profits from Roseville gambling sites by the end of each premises permit year. The remaining percentage may be carried over to the subsequent permit or license year. The City Council may grant a variance authorizing the organization to carry over more that 25% of all its net profits for expenditure in the subsequent permit or license year. C. In the event any organization contributes to the City any sum in excess of the10% as required in subsection A above, said funds will be deposited and allocated to the Roseville Community Fund, as administered by the North Suburban Community Foundation. In the event the Roseville Community Fund, as administered by the North Suburban Community Attachment C Foundation is in any way unable to receive the allocated funds as set forth in subsection A above, the funds will be deposited in an interest bearing escrow account in a bank located in the City and allocated to uses by further order of the City Council. (Ord. 1114, 9-24-92) (Ord. 1412, 7-11-2011) 304.05: LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: All organizations conducting lawful gambling within the City shall, within 30days of the end of each month, pay to the City an amount equal to 3% of the gross receipts from lawful gambling conducted in the City in such month, less amounts actually paid for prizes, to cover the City's law enforcement and administrative costs in regulating lawful gambling. (Ord. 1114, 9-24-92) 304.06: GAMBLING EXEMPT FROM STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS: A. Organizations which conduct lawful gambling which is exempt from State gambling licensing requirements may conduct such gambling within the City upon receipt of a permit from the City, except this requirement does not apply to door prizes or raffles and bingo where total prizes are less than $1,500 in a calendar year. (Ord. 1327, 10-10-05) B. An application for such a permit, along with a fee as prescribed by the Fee Schedule, shall be made at least 30 days prior to the date such gambling is to be conducted. The application shall contain the following: 1. The name of the organization. 2. The address of the organization. 3. The place where such gambling will occur. 4. The total prizes to be awarded. (Ord. 1327, 10-10-05) C. Within 30 days of filing any reports with the Gambling Control Board, the organization shall file a copy of such reports with the City. D. The provisions relating to law enforcement and administrative costs set forth in Section 304.05 shall not apply to gambling permitted pursuant to this Section. All other provisions of this Chapter apply to such organizations. (Ord. 1114, 9-24-92) 304.07: VIDEO GAMES OF CHANCE: "Video games of chance", as defined by Minnesota Statutes, are prohibited in the City. (Ord. 1114, 9-24-92) Attachment C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/2016 Item No.: 12.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Public Hearing to Consider Approving the 2017 Liquor License Renewals Page 1 of 3 BACKGROUND 1 Under City Code, a public hearing is required to consider approving liquor license renewals for the 2 following calendar year. The City has received the following completed renewal applications for 2017: 3 4  3 Off Sale Intoxicating liquor licenses (maximum of 10 permitted under City Code) 5  9 On Sale Intoxicating liquor licenses 6  4 On Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses 7  1 Off Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses 8  3 Club liquor licenses 9  4 Wine only liquor licenses 10  1 Brewery Liquor Licenses 11 12 A detailed list of all liquor license renewals is included in Attachment A. 13 14 The following liquor establishments had liquor compliance failures during the previous 5 years: 15 16 Date Establishment 6/2012 B-Dale Club 10/2016 VFW 17 The Council has discretion to factor in these compliance failures in considering whether to renew a liquor 18 license. 19 POLICY OBJECTIVE 20 The regulation of establishments that sell alcoholic beverages has been a long-standing practice by the State 21 and the City. 22 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 23 The revenue that is generated from the license fees is used to offset the cost of police compliance checks, 24 background investigations, enforcement of liquor laws, and license administration. 25 Page 2 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 26 All liquor license renewal applications have met Statutory and City Code requirements. Staff recommends 27 approval pending background checks. 28 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 29 Motion to approve/deny the renewal of the requested liquor licenses for 2017. 30 31 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Requested liquor license renewals for 2017. 32 Page 3 of 3 Off-Sale Attachment A 33 Hamline Liquors 34 MGM Wine & Spirits 35 Tower Glen Liquor 36 37 On-Sale & Special Sunday Liquor Sales 38 Fantasy Flight Game Center 39 Granite City Food & Brewery 40 Grumpy’s Bar & Grill 41 Joe’s Crab Shack 42 Lucky’s 13 Pub 43 Ol Mexico 44 Outback Steakhouse 45 Pizza Luce 46 Ruby Tuesday 47 48 On-Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating 49 Key’s Café & Bakery 50 Lisu Thai Taste 51 Szechuan 52 Wing Stop 53 54 Off-Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating 55 Walmart #3404 56 57 On-Sale Club & Special Sunday Liquor Sales 58 B-Dale Club 59 Roseville VFW 60 Rosetown Social Club (American Legion) 61 62 Wine 63 Key’s Café & Bakery 64 Lisu Thai Taste 65 Szechuan 66 Wing Stop 67 68 Micro/Small Brewer Off Sale Malt Liquor 69 Granite City Food & Brewery 70 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/2016 Item No.: 13.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Adopt a Final 2017 Tax Levy and Budget Page 1 of 8 BACKGROUND 1 State Statute requires all cities in excess of 2,500 in population, to adopt a final tax levy and budget by 2 December 30th for the upcoming fiscal year. The final levy amount must not exceed the preliminary levy 3 that was established in September. However, the Council has discretion in modifying the budget at any 4 time. 5 6 At the September 12, 2016 City Council meeting, the Council adopted a 2017 preliminary, not-to-exceed 7 tax levy and budget. A summary is presented below. 8 9 2017 Tax Levy & Levy Impact 10 The 2017 preliminary tax levy is $19,991,170, an increase of $1,046,240 or 5.52%. A summary of the 11 increase is shown in the table below. 12 13 2016 Tax Levy 18,944,720$ 2017 Levy Reductions Supplies, materials, contractual services (193,855)$ Personnel-related costs (219,935) Total Levy Reductions (413,790)$ 2017 Levy Additions Supplies, materials, contractual services 289,305$ Employee cost-of-living-adjustment 263,000 Employee wage step increases 218,000 Employee position changes/reorg.331,385 Capital replacements 225,000 Change in non-levy revenue sources (net)133,550 Total Levy Additions 1,460,240$ Net Levy Change 1,046,450$ 2017 Tax Levy 19,991,170$ % Increase 5.52%14 15 16 Page 2 of 8 As shown above, the tax levy is scheduled to increase by 5.52% in 2017. For a median-valued home that 17 experiences a 4.8% valuation increase (citywide average), the tax impact will be $4.22 per month or an 18 increase of 5.9%. This excludes the impact from the City’s EDA levy. 19 20 A Summary of the 2017 Tax Levy by major category is presented below 21 22 2017 Proposed Tax Levy $ Increase % Increase 2016 2017 (Decrease)(Decrease) Operations 13,478,720$ 14,365,170$ 886,450$ 6.6% Capital 2,136,000 2,296,000 160,000 7.5% Debt 3,330,000 3,330,000 - 0.0% Total 18,944,720$ 19,991,170$ 1,046,450$ 5.5%23 24 It’s worth noting that the State of Minnesota provides a number of property tax relief programs that are 25 designed to offset local tax increases. For 2015, eligibility for homeowners was capped at household 26 incomes of $107,930, while renters were eligible up to an income of $58,490. Depending on household 27 income, residents could potentially receive a partial refund of their increased taxes. This would effectively 28 reduce the tax impacts noted above. 29 30 2017 Budget 31 The 2017 Preliminary Budget as currently amended is $52,035,685. The Budget for the tax-supported 32 programs including capital replacements is $29,342,290, an increase of $596,800 or 2.1%. 33 34 Spending increases in the tax-supported programs is detailed below. 35 36 2016 Operating Budget 28,745,490$ 2017 Budget Reductions Supplies, materials, contractual services (193,855)$ Personnel-related costs (219,935) Capital Replacements (91,100) Total Budget Reductions (504,890)$ 2017 Budget Additions Supplies, materials, contractual services 289,305$ Employee cost-of-living-adjustment 263,000 Employee wage step increases 218,000 Employee position changes/reorg.331,385 Total Budget Additions 1,101,690$ Net Budget Change 596,800$ 2017 Operating Budget 29,342,290$ % Increase 2.08%37 38 It should be noted that the 2017 Operating Budget for the tax-supported programs continues to rely on 39 $375,000 in cash reserves from the General Fund. 40 41 Page 3 of 8 POLICY OBJECTIVE 42 Adopting a preliminary budget and tax levy is required under Mn State Statutes. 43 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 44 See above. 45 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 46 Staff Recommends the Council adopt the final 2017 Tax Levy and Budget as outlined in this report and 47 in the attached resolutions. 48 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 49 The Council is asked to take the following separate actions: 50 51 a)Motion to approve the attached Resolution to adopt the 2017 Final Tax Levy52 b)Motion to approve the attached Resolution to adopt the 2017 Final Debt Levy53 c)Motion to approve the attached Resolution to adopt the 2017 Final Budget54 55 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Resolution to adopt the 2017 Final Tax Levy B: Resolution to adopt the 2017 Final Debt Levy C: Resolution to adopt the 2017 Final Budget D: Memo on Projected 2016 Cash Reserve Levels 56 Page 4 of 8 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 57 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 58 59 * * * * * * * * * * *60 61 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, 62 County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 5th day of December, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. 63 64 The following members were present: and , and the following were absent: 65 66 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 67 68 RESOLUTION 69 70 RESOLUTION SUBMITTING THE FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY 71 ON REAL ESTATE TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY AUDITOR 72 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2017 73 74 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, as 75 follows: 76 77 The City of Roseville is submitting the following tax levy on real estate within the corporate limits of the 78 City to the County Auditor in compliance with the Minnesota State Statutes. 79 80 Purpose Amount Programs & Services 16,661,170$ Debt Service 3,330,000 Total 19,991,170$ 81 82 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a 83 vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and , and the following voted 84 against the same: 85 86 WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 87 88 State of Minnesota) 89 ) SS 90 County of Ramsey) 91 92 Attachment A Page 5 of 8 I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State 93 of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of 94 minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th of December, 2016 with the original 95 thereof on file in my office. 96 97 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of December, 2016. 98 99 100 ___________________________ 101 Patrick Trudgeon 102 City Manager 103 104 Seal 105 106 Page 6 of 8 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 107 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 108 109 * * * * * * * * * * *110 111 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, 112 County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 5th day of December, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. 113 114 The following members were present: 115 , and the following were absent: 116 117 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 118 119 RESOLUTION ______________ 120 121 RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO 122 ADJUST THE APPROVED TAX LEVY FOR 2017 BONDED DEBT 123 124 WHEREAS, the City will be required to make debt service payments on General Obligation Debt in 125 2017; and 126 127 WHEREAS, there are reserve funds sufficient to partially reduce the originally scheduled levy for 128 General Obligation Series 2009A, 2011A, 2012A, and 2013A; and 129 130 WHEREAS, General Obligation Series 2008A requires a slightly higher amount. 131 132 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, that 133 134 The Ramsey County Auditor is directed to change the 2017 tax levy for General Improvement Debt by 135 $295,742.08 from that which was originally scheduled upon the issuance of the bonds as follows: 136 137 Originally Additions Scheduled or Certified Bond Issue Levy Amount Reductions Debt Levy GO Equip Certs 2008A 353,364.38$ 1,635.62$ 355,000.00$ GO Housing Imp 2009A 117,337.50 (117,337.50) - GO 2011A 841,532.70 (6,532.70) 835,000.00 GO 2012A 1,433,932.50 (58,932.50) 1,375,000.00 GO 2013A refunding 879,575.00 (114,575.00) 765,000.00 Total 3,625,742.08$ (295,742.08)$ 3,330,000.00$ 138 139 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a 140 vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 141 142 and the following voted against the same: 143 144 WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 145 146 Attachment B Page 7 of 8 I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State 148 of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of 149 minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of December, 2016, with the original 150 thereof on file in my office. 151 152 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of December, 2016. 153 154 155 ___________________________ 156 Patrick Trudgeon 157 City Manager 158 159 Seal 160 161 Page 8 of 8 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 162 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 163 164 * * * * * * * * * * *165 166 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, 167 County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 5th day of December 2016 at 6:00 p.m. 168 169 The following members were present: 170 and the following were absent: 171 172 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 173 174 RESOLUTION ______________ 175 176 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL 2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 177 FOR THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 178 179 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, as 180 follows: 181 182 The City of Roseville's Budget for 2017 in the amount of $52,035,685, of which $29,342,290 is 183 designated for the property tax-supported programs, be hereby accepted and approved. 184 185 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a 186 vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 187 188 and the following voted against the same: 189 190 WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 191 192 State of Minnesota) 193 ) SS 194 County of Ramsey) 195 196 I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State 197 of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of 198 minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of December, 2016, with the original 199 thereof on file in my office. 200 201 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of December, 2016. 202 203 204 ___________________________ 205 Patrick Trudgeon 206 City Manager 207 208 Seal 209 Attachment C Memo To: Roseville City Council Pat Trudgeon, City Manager From: Chris Miller, Finance Director Date: December 5, 2016 Re: Projected 2016 Cash Reserve Levels Background In preparation for finalizing the 2017 final budget, the Council has asked to have the most recent projection of the 2016 Budget results to gain a greater understanding of the City’s current financial condition and the resources available moving forward. As noted in previous years there are a number of challenges and pitfalls associated with financial projections – even when done towards the end of the fiscal year. Millions of dollars in transactions take place in the final months including purchases that are delayed throughout the year until it becomes more certain that budget monies would be available. Expenditures in the months of November and December in particular can fluctuate significantly. In addition, we won’t know what our final 2016 property tax collections will be until mid-January of 2017. That being said, we can analyze general year-to-date revenue and expenditure trends and extrapolate that information to arrive at year-end projections. It should be noted that this approach, although generally sound, does carry a certain margin of error. The 2016 budget-to-actual results presented below is based on the most recent trend analysis for the following selected operating funds: General Fund Parks & Recreation Fund License Center Fund Communications Fund Each of these funds are presented separately below. Attachment D General Fund The 2016 General Fund’s projected results are as follows: General Fund 2016 2016 Budget Projected Revenue 13,763,635$ 15,610,960$ Expenditures 14,139,135 13,887,010 Surplus (Deficit)(375,500)$ 1,723,951$ As shown in the table, the General Fund is projected to realize an operating surplus of approximately $1,723,000 as compared to an originally forecasted deficit. The significant turnaround is the result of several large one-time occurrences. The most prominent contributor is the one-time collection of $1.1 million in excess tax increment due to the recent closure of a tax increment district. In previous discussions, Staff has recommended that these excess TIF monies be earmarked for Building Replacement Fund and public improvements near the Snelling/Lydia/Lincoln Drive area. A second prominent factor is the collection of $356,000 in property tax valuation petition reversals filed last year. These monies were withheld from the City’s property tax collections in 2015 pending the outcome of the petitions. Additional revenues were also collected from contractual engineering services provided to the City of Falcon Heights as well as right-of-way and erosion control permits. Based on these results, the General Fund’s 12/31/16 unrestricted cash reserve level, excluding the $1.1 million in excess TIF is projected to be as follows: The General Fund’s 12/31/16 cash reserve level is projected to be approximately $6.1 million which is within the targeted range. However, the 2017 Recommended Budget calls for the use of $405,000 in cash reserves. 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Projected General Fund Cash Reserve Level Actual Target: High Target: Low Attachment D Parks & Recreation Fund The 2016 Parks & Recreation Fund’s projected results are as follows: Recreation Fund 2016 2016 Budget Projected Revenue 4,551,710$ 4,489,389$ Expenditures 4,551,710 4,164,389 Surplus (Deficit)-$ 325,000$ The Parks & Recreation Fund is projected to realize an operating surplus of $325,000. This is primarily due to lower-than expected operating costs across most major program areas. Based on these results, the Recreation Fund’s 12/31/16 unrestricted cash reserve level is projected to be as follows: The Parks & Recreation Fund’s 12/31/16 cash reserve level is projected to be approximately $1.6 million or 9% above the targeted range. License Center Fund The 2016 License Center Fund’s projected results are as follows: License Center Fund 2016 2016 Budget Projected Revenue 1,603,500$ 1,761,332$ Expenditures 1,877,625 1,737,425 Surplus (Deficit)(274,125)$ 23,907$ The License Center is projected to realize an operating surplus of $23,907. This results from significantly higher revenues than expected and reduced personnel, supply, and other costs. Based on these results, the License Center’s 12/31/16 unrestricted cash reserve level is projected to be as follows: 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Projected Recreation Fund Cash Reserve Level Actual Target Attachment D The License Center Fund’s 12/31/16 cash reserve level is projected to be approximately $1.3 million which is within the targeted level needed to sustain day-to-day operations. However, a significant portion of this cash is tentatively earmarked for the financing of a new or renovated facility. Communications Fund The 2016 Communications Fund’s projected results are as follows: Communications Fund 2016 2016 Budget Projected Revenue 480,000$ 441,536$ Expenditures 506,275 481,715 Surplus (Deficit)(26,275)$ (40,179)$ The Communications Fund is projected to realize an operating deficit of $40,179. The deficit was greater than expected primarily due to lower cable franchise fees. Based on these results, the Communications Fund’s 12/31/16 unrestricted cash reserve level is projected to be as follows: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Projected License Center Fund Cash Reserve Level Actual Target: High Target: Low Attachment D The Communications Fund’s 12/31/16 cash reserve level is projected to be approximately $429,000 which is about 82% above the targeted range. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Projected Communications Fund Cash Reserve Level Actual Target: High Target: Low Attachment D REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/16 Item No.: 14.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Adopt the 2017 Final EDA Tax Levy Page 1 of 4 BACKGROUND 1 Under State Statutes, municipalities with an established Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) or 2 Economic Development Authority (EDA) are allowed to establish a separate property tax levy that is 3 designated for housing and economic development purposes. The City of Roseville utilizes an EDA. 4 5 On September 12th, the City Council adopted a preliminary, not-to-exceed EDA levy of $356,585. 6 However, the Council must now adopt a final EDA levy to formally authorize it for 2017. 7 8 The following table summarizes the estimated tax impact on single-family residential homes, based on 9 the EDA’s recommended 2017 tax levy, tax base estimates provided by Ramsey County, and assuming 10 a 4.8% increase in property valuation – the expected amount for a median valued home in Roseville. 11 12 13 Estimated ANNUAL Tax Impact - Residential 4.8% Valuation Increase $ Increase % Increase Value of Home 2016 2017 (Decrease)(Decrease) 167,680 - 13.36 13.36 n/a 188,640 - 15.03 15.03 n/a 226,800 - 18.07 18.07 n/a 246,280 - 19.63 19.63 n/a 267,240 - 21.30 21.30 n/a 1.51$ Per month14 15 The amounts shown above are independent of the impact that results from the City’s regular property tax 16 levy. 17 18 Page 2 of 4 POLICY OBJECTIVE 19 Adopting a final EDA tax levy is required under State Statutes in order to make it effective the following 20 year. 21 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 22 See above. 23 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 24 Staff Recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution setting the 2017 Final EDA property tax 25 levy. 26 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 27 Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the 2017 Final EDA tax levy. 28 29 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Resolution to adopt the 2017 Final EDA Tax Levy 30 Page 3 of 4 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 31 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 32 33 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, 34 County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 5th day of December, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. 35 36 The following members were present 37 38 and the following were absent: 39 40 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 41 42 RESOLUTION NO _____ 43 44 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE 45 ROSEVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ON REAL ESTATE TO THE 46 RAMSEY COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2017 47 48 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, 49 Minnesota, as follows: 50 51 The request of the Economic Development Authority for a special levy per Minnesota Statutes 52 Section 469.107, is hereby approved in the amount of $356,585 to be collected in 2017 for the purposes 53 of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081. This amount does not exceed 0.01813 percent of 54 estimated market value of the city as required under Section 469.107. 55 56 The motion for the adoption of the forgoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member 57 and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: 58 59 60 and the following voted against: 61 62 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 63 64 State of Minnesota) 65 ) SS 66 County of Ramsey) 67 68 I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State 69 of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of 70 minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th of December, 2016 with the original 71 thereof on file in my office. 72 73 74 Attachment A Page 4 of 4 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of December, 2016. 75 76 77 ___________________________ 78 Patrick Trudgeon 79 City Manager 80 Seal 81 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/16 Item No.: 14.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider Adopting the 2017 Utility Rate Adjustments Page 1 of 15 BACKGROUND 1 Over the past several months, City Staff has been reviewing the City’s utilities operations to determine 2 whether customer rate adjustments are necessary for 2017. The analysis included a review of the City’s 3 water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and curbside recycling operations. 4 5 The information presented below includes an analysis of these operations, some historical water usage 6 information, and a series of rate comparisons with peer communities. Each of these are presented in 7 separate sections. 8 9 Operational Review 10 Staff’s analysis of its utility operations included a review of the following: 11 12  Fixed costs including personnel, supplies and maintenance, and other costs that are generally 13 independent of the amount of water purchased or wastewater that is generated. 14  Variable costs including the purchase of water from the City of St. Paul, water treatment costs 15 paid to the Metropolitan Council, and recycling contractor costs paid to Eureka Recycling. 16  Capital replacement costs. 17  Customer counts and consumption patterns, rate structure, and rates. 18 19 Based on an analysis of these costs and customer consumption patterns, Staff is recommending a number 20 of fee adjustments for 2017. The need for these adjustments are presented in greater detail below sections. 21 22 Based on Staff’s recommendation, the estimated quarterly impact on a typical single-family home is 23 shown in the following table. 24 25 Page 2 of 15 Utility Rate Impact: Single Family Home Service 2016 2017 $ Increase % Increase Water - base fee 51.60 53.15 1.55 Water - usage fee 33.75 33.75 - Sanitary Sewer - base fee 35.40 36.45 1.05 Sanitary Sewer - usage fee 23.40 27.95 4.55 Storm Sewer 12.35 12.95 0.60 Recycling 5.60 6.50 0.90 Total per Quarter 162.10$ 170.75$ 8.65$ 5.33% Avg. Water consumption (1,000 gals.)15 Avg. Sewer consumption (1,000 gals.)13 26 27 For 2017 a typical single-family home will pay an estimated $170.75 per quarter, or $56.92 per month. 28 This is an increase of $2.88 per month from 2016. More detailed information for each operating division 29 can be found below. 30 31 Water Operations 32 The City’s water operation provides City customers with safe potable water, as well as on-demand water 33 pressure sufficient to meet the City’s fire protection needs. The following table provides a summary of 34 the 2016 and 2017 (proposed) Budget excluding capital: 35 36 2016 2017 $ Increase % Increase Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Revenues Customer Charges 7,487,750$ 7,100,000$ (387,750)$ -5.2% Interest Earnings 1,000 5,000 4,000 400.0% Total 7,488,750$ 7,105,000$ (383,750)$ -5.1% Expenses Personnel Services 642,800$ 642,500$ (300)$ 0.0% Supplies & Materials 82,100 88,200 6,100 7.4% Other Services & Charges 5,793,850 5,565,750 (228,100) -3.9% Total 6,518,750$ 6,296,450$ (222,300)$ -3.4% Net Available for Capital **970,000$ 808,550$ ** Excludes $592,000 in cash reserves set aside for water-related capital 37 38 For 2017, overall budgeted revenues and expenditures are expected to decline significantly after adjusting 39 for revised customer usage estimates. The revision affects both the ‘Customer Charges’ (revenue) and 40 ‘Other Services & Charges’ (expenses). Costs associated with assigned personnel are expected to remain 41 steady even after accommodating a 2.75% cost-of-living adjustment. 42 43 The single largest operating cost for the water operation is the purchase of wholesale water from the St. 44 Paul Regional Water System (SPRWS). SPRWS Officials have informed us that there will be a 4.67% 45 increase in the cost of purchasing wholesale water in 2017. However, Roseville’s current customer usage 46 rates have a sufficient cushion to accommodate this increase. 47 48 The revised 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies added infrastructure replacement costs 49 Page 3 of 15 in the coming years which will require a 3.0% increase in the water base fee. 50 Sanitary Sewer Operations 51 The City maintains a sanitary sewer collection system to ensure the general public’s health and general 52 welfare. The following table provides a summary of the 2016 and 2017 (proposed) Budget excluding 53 capital: 54 55 2016 2017 $ Increase % Increase Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Revenues Customer Charges 5,032,745$ 5,040,000$ 7,255$ 0.1% Interest Earnings 5,000 5,000 - 0.0% Total 5,037,745$ 5,045,000$ 7,255$ 0.1% Expenses Personnel Services 469,200$ 493,100$ 23,900$ 5.1% Supplies & Materials 50,200 50,400 200 0.4% Other Services & Charges 3,374,550 3,505,550 131,000 3.9% Total 3,893,950$ 4,049,050$ 155,100$ 4.0% Net Available for Capital **1,143,795$ 995,950$ ** Excludes $205,000 in cash reserves set aside for sanitary sewer-related capital 56 57 For 2017, overall costs are expected to rise 4.0%. Costs associated with assigned personnel are expected 58 to increase 5.1% which includes a 2.75% cost-of-living adjustment. 59 60 The single largest operating cost to the sanitary sewer operation is the wastewater treatment costs paid to 61 the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES). The MCES has informed us that we 62 can expect a 5.7% increase in wastewater treatment costs for 2017 despite having lower sewer flows. The 63 increase is attributable to the MCES’ higher infrastructure replacement costs which are shared amongst 64 metro area customers. This will require a 19.4% increase in sewer usage fees for our sanitary sewer 65 customers. 66 67 The revised 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies added infrastructure replacement costs 68 in the coming years which will also require a 3.0% increase in the sanitary sewer base fee. 69 70 Storm Drainage Operations 71 The City provides for the management of storm water drainage to prevent flooding and pollution control, 72 as well as the street sweeping program. The following table provides a summary of the 2016 and 2017 73 (proposed) Budget excluding capital: 74 Page 4 of 15 2016 2017 $ Increase % Increase Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Revenues Customer Charges 1,645,685$ 1,775,000$ 129,315$ 7.9% Interest Earnings 35,000 20,000 (15,000) -42.9% Total 1,680,685$ 1,795,000$ 114,315$ 6.8% Expenses Personnel Services 397,600$ 404,700$ 7,100$ 1.8% Supplies & Materials 83,500 86,500 3,000 3.6% Other Services & Charges 271,200 347,100 75,900 28.0% Total 752,300$ 838,300$ 86,000$ 11.4% Net Available for Capital **928,385$ 956,700$ ** Excludes $1,090,000 in cash reserves set aside for storm sewer-related capital 75 76 For 2017, overall costs are expected to rise 11.4%. Costs associated with assigned personnel are expected 77 to increase 1.8% which includes a 2.75% cost-of-living adjustment. The increase in ‘Others Services & 78 Charges’ is due to the costs associated with updating the Stormwater Plan, which is required as part of 79 the broader decennial update of the Comprehensive Plan. 80 81 The revised 20-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies added infrastructure replacement costs 82 in the coming years which will require a 5.0% increase in the storm sewer fee. 83 84 Recycling Operations 85 The recycling operation provides for the contracted curbside recycling pickup throughout the City and 86 related administrative costs. The primary operating cost is the amounts paid to a contractor to pickup 87 recycling materials. 88 89 The following table provides a summary of the 2016 and 2017 (proposed) Budget: 90 91 2016 2017 $ Increase % Increase Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Revenues Base Fee Revenue 346,000$ 426,210$ 80,210$ 23.2% Usage Fee Revenue - - - 0.0% SCORE Grant 89,200 85,000 (4,200) -4.7% Revenue Sharing 48,000 - (48,000) -100.0% Interest Earnings 1,000 1,000 - 0.0% Total 484,200$ 512,210$ 28,010$ 5.8% Expenses Personnel Services 36,800$ 36,800$ -$ 0.0% Supplies & Materials 2,000 2,000 - 0.0% Other Services & Charges 453,410 473,410 20,000 4.4% Total 492,210$ 512,210$ 20,000$ 4.1% Net From Operations **(8,010)$ -$ ** The Recycling Fund has a cash balance of $90,600 92 93 For 2017, overall costs are expected to rise 4.1% resulting from a new multi-year contract for services 94 Page 5 of 15 (review pending). The increased contractor costs which include the addition of pickups in public areas, 95 coupled with a decline in revenue sharing will require a 16.0% increase in the recycling fee charged to 96 customers. 97 98 Recommended Rates for 2016 99 As noted above, a typical single-family home will pay $170.75 per quarter, or $56.92 per month under 100 the recommended rates. The following tables provide a more detailed breakdown of the proposed rates. 101 102 Page 6 of 15 2016 2017 Water Base Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family Residential 51.60$ 53.15$ Standard SF rate Single-Family Residential: Low-Income Discount 33.50 34.55 Standard SF rate x 0.65 Non-SF Residential (5/8" Meter)51.60 53.15 Standard SF rate Non-SF Residential (1.0" Meter)64.50 66.45 Standard SF rate x 1.25 Non-SF Residential (1.5" Meter)103.00 106.10 Standard SF rate x 2.00 Non-SF Residential (2.0" Meter)193.50 199.30 Standard SF rate x 3.75 Non-SF Residential (3.0" Meter)387.00 398.60 Standard SF rate x 7.50 Non-SF Residential (4.0" Meter)774.00 797.20 Standard SF rate x 15.00 Non-SF Residential (6.0" Meter)1,548.00 1,594.45 Standard SF rate x 30.00 2016 2017 Water Usage Rate Category Rate Rate Comments SF Residential: Up to 30,000 gals./qtr 2.25$ 2.25$ Standard SF rate SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals./qtr (winter rate)2.50 2.50 Standard SF rate +10% SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals./qtr (summer rate)2.70 2.70 Standard SF rate +20% Non-SF Residential (winter rate)2.95 2.95 Standard SF rate +30% Non-SF Residential (summer rate)3.15 3.15 Standard SF rate +40% Rates are per 1,000 gallons 2016 2017 Sewer Base Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family Residential 35.40$ 36.45$ Standard SF rate Single-Family Residential: Low-Income Discount 23.00 23.70 Standard SF rate x 0.65 Multi-Family Residential (townhomes)35.40 36.45 Standard SF rate x 1.00 Multi-Family Residential (apartments & condos)24.90 25.65 Standard SF rate x 0.70 Non-SF Residential (5/8" Meter)26.50 27.30 Standard SF rate x 0.75 Non-SF Residential (1.0" Meter)53.00 54.60 Standard SF rate x 1.50 Non-SF Residential (1.5" Meter)79.50 81.90 Standard SF rate x 2.25 Non-SF Residential (2.0" Meter)124.00 127.70 Standard SF rate x 3.50 Non-SF Residential (3.0" Meter)260.00 267.80 Standard SF rate x 7.25 Non-SF Residential (4.0" Meter)515.00 530.45 Standard SF rate x 14.50 Non-SF Residential (6.0" Meter)1,025.00 1,055.75 Standard SF rate x 29.00 Multi-family rate is per housing unit 2016 2017 Sewer Usage Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Residential 1.80$ 2.15$ Standard rate Non-Residential 4.20 5.00 Standard rate x 2.30 Rates are per 1,000 gallons 103 104 Page 7 of 15 2016 2017 Stormwater Base Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family Residential & Duplex 12.35$ 12.95$ Standard SF rate Multi-Family & Churches 95.55 100.35 Standard SF rate x 7.75 Cemeteries & Golf Course 9.30 9.75 Standard SF rate x 0.75 Parks 28.75 30.20 Standard SF rate x 2.35 Schools & Community Centers 46.45 48.80 Standard SF rate x 3.75 Commercial & Industrial 191.00 200.55 Standard SF rate x 15.50 Rates for single-family are per housing unit; all others are per acre 2016 2017 Recycling Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family 5.60$ 6.50$ Standard rate Multi-Family 5.60 6.50 Standard rate 105 106 Water Usage History 107 The series of graphs presented below depict water customer consumption patterns over the past 8 years 108 beginning with a depiction of the citywide water consumption. 109 110 111 112 As indicated in the graph, citywide consumption has generally been falling over the past eight years – a 113 17% reduction since 2007. With aggregate data it’s difficult to conclude whether water customers are 114 truly modifying their behavior or if the volume is decreasing for other reasons such as the loss of high-115 water users (manufacturing, hotels, apartments, etc.) or higher summertime rainfall totals. 116 117 As we’ll discuss further below, the average monthly summertime rainfall totals have increased somewhat 118 since 2009, however during this same period the City has seen growth in housing units, retail 119 establishments, and other commercial uses. The bottom line is that overall consumption has declined, 120 while the City has grown. 121 122 123 - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Citywide Water Usage (000's gals.) Page 8 of 15 The next graph depicts the average quarterly wintertime usage for single-family homes. Because it 124 excludes summer lawn & garden irrigation months, the graph is indicative what single-family homes use 125 for ‘normal’ household usage such as laundry, showering/bathing, etc. 126 127 128 129 As shown in the graph, the average overall usage for single-family homes in the wintertime has remained 130 relatively stable since 2007 with a variance of only about 2,000 gallons from year to year. 131 132 On the surface, the data suggests that customer behavior and consumption patterns were not influenced 133 by changes in the water usage fees in either direction. This may have occurred because the financial 134 incentive or penalty to modify a household’s behavior was simply not large enough. Then again, it could 135 mean that most households simply held to an established standard of cleanliness, while remaining mindful 136 of societal norms associated with water conservation. 137 138 This seems to be evidenced when the water usage fee dropped from $2.35 per thousand gallons in 2008 139 to $1.85 in 2009 as part of an overall rate structure change. This effectively lowered the cost of 140 consumption by 20%. Despite these favorable circumstances, household usage remained unchanged. 141 142 Finally, we can look at the average quarterly summertime usage for single-family homes to gauge whether 143 water usage behaviors are influenced by seasonal factors such as lawn & garden irrigation. In this 144 instance, we need to also track local rainfall totals because it can influence how much water households 145 use for outdoor purposes. 146 147 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 07-'08 08-'09 09-'10 10-'11 11-'12 12-'13 13-'14 14-'15 15-'16 SF Homes Average Water Usage (000's gals.) November -March Avg. Consumption (Gals.) Page 9 of 15 148 149 As the graph indicates, over the past eight years the average overall usage + captured volume of water 150 for single-family homes in the summertime ranged from 31,000 gallons per quarter to 39,000. 151 152 What is clearly evidenced by the data, summertime consumption patterns are directly influenced by 153 rainfall amounts. Clearly, customers reduced their summertime consumption during heavier rainfall 154 periods. Changes in water usage fees didn’t seem to be a factor on how much water was used. Once again, 155 it appears that customers are making a conscious decision to maintain an established standard – in this 156 case a healthy lawn and garden while remaining mindful of the tenets of water conservation. The bottom 157 line is that single-family summertime water consumption has dropped by 29% since 2009. 158 159 Rate Comparisons 160 The graphs below depict a number of water and sewer rate comparisons with other peer communities. 161 For this analysis, peer communities include 1st ring suburbs that serve a population between 18,000 and 162 50,000, and which are not simply an extension of a larger entity’s system (e.g. Maplewood is excluded 163 because they’re part of St. Paul’s system). This group was selected to try and approximate cities with 164 stand-alone systems with similar age of infrastructure which can have a significant influence on the cost 165 of water and sewer services. 166 167 It should be noted that broad comparisons only give a cursory look at how one community’s rates 168 compares to another. One must also incorporate each City’s individual philosophy in funding programs 169 and services. 170 171 For example, Roseville does NOT utilize assessments to pay for water or sewer infrastructure 172 replacements like many other cities do. Instead we fund infrastructure replacements 100% through the 173 rates. As a result, Roseville’s water and sewer rates are inherently higher when compared to a City that 174 uses assessments to pay for improvements. Other influences on the rates include whether or not a 175 community softens its water before sending it on to customers, and the extent in which communities 176 charge higher rates to non-residential customers. 177 178 The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined water base rate and usage rate for 179 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SF Homes: Avg Water Usage/Captured April -September Avg. Consumption (Gals.)Avg. Rainfall (Gals.) Page 10 of 15 a single-family home that uses 15,000 gallons per quarter. 180 181 182 183 As is shown in the graph, Roseville’s total water charge (base + usage) is the highest in the comparison 184 group. One of the primary reasons why Roseville’s water rates are higher is due to the significant increase 185 in infrastructure replacements in recent years, which unlike many other cities, are funded solely by the 186 rates. 187 188 The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined sewer base rate and usage rate for 189 a single-family home that uses 13,000 gallons per quarter. 190 191 192 193 In this comparison, Roseville sewer charges were less than the median. 194 195 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 2016 Water Fee Comparison: SF Residential $40 $60 $80 $100 2016 Sewer Fee Comparison: SF Residential Page 11 of 15 To get a broader perspective, the following chart has been prepared depicting the combined water and 196 sewer impact for a typical single-family home for the comparison group. 197 198 199 200 When combined, Roseville is approximately 14% above the average for the peer group. 201 202 It should be noted that most of the cities shown in the chart that have lower water & sewer rates, happen 203 to have much higher property tax rates. This is an important distinction because again, each City employs 204 a different philosophy in how it funds the direct and indirect costs of providing water & sewer services. 205 206 Roseville’s philosophy is to ensure that all indirect costs are reflected in the water and sewer rates. This 207 results in higher water and sewer rates. This also means that we don’t have as many indirect costs being 208 supported by the property tax or assessments. We can adjust for these differences by combining property 209 taxes and water & sewer fees for a typical single-family home. 210 211 212 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 2016 Water & Sewer Fee Comparison: SF Residential $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 $2,200 2016 Taxes + Water & Sewer Comparison: SF Residential Page 12 of 15 213 As is shown in this graph, when looking at more comprehensive comparison that factors in a broader 214 spectrum of needs and funding philosophies, Roseville has one of the lowest financial impacts on 215 residents of the comparison group – approximately 12% below the peer average. 216 217 Staff will be available at the Commission meeting to address any inquiries. 218 219 POLICY OBJECTIVE 220 An annual review of the City’s utility rate structure is consistent with governmental best practices to 221 ensure that each utility operation is financially sound. 222 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 223 See above. 224 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 225 Based on the increasing costs noted above, Staff is recommending rate adjustments as shown in the 226 attached resolution. 227 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 228 Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing the 2017 Utility Rates. 229 230 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: A: Resolution establishing the 2017 Utility Rates B: Utility rate calculations 231 232 Page 13 of 15 Attachment A 233 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 234 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 235 236 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 237 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, 238 County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 5th day of December, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. 239 240 The following members were present: 241 and the following were absent: 242 243 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 244 245 RESOLUTION _______ 246 247 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2017 UTILITY RATES 248 249 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, the 250 water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and recycling rates are established for 2017 as follows: 251 252 253 2016 2017 Water Base Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family Residential 51.60$ 53.15$ Standard SF rate Single-Family Residential: Low-Income Discount 33.50 34.55 Standard SF rate x 0.65 Non-SF Residential (5/8" Meter)51.60 53.15 Standard SF rate Non-SF Residential (1.0" Meter)64.50 66.45 Standard SF rate x 1.25 Non-SF Residential (1.5" Meter)103.00 106.10 Standard SF rate x 2.00 Non-SF Residential (2.0" Meter)193.50 199.30 Standard SF rate x 3.75 Non-SF Residential (3.0" Meter)387.00 398.60 Standard SF rate x 7.50 Non-SF Residential (4.0" Meter)774.00 797.20 Standard SF rate x 15.00 Non-SF Residential (6.0" Meter)1,548.00 1,594.45 Standard SF rate x 30.00 2016 2017 Water Usage Rate Category Rate Rate Comments SF Residential: Up to 30,000 gals./qtr 2.25$ 2.25$ Standard SF rate SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals./qtr (winter rate)2.50 2.50 Standard SF rate +10% SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals./qtr (summer rate)2.70 2.70 Standard SF rate +20% Non-SF Residential (winter rate)2.95 2.95 Standard SF rate +30% Non-SF Residential (summer rate)3.15 3.15 Standard SF rate +40% Rates are per 1,000 gallons 254 255 256 257 Page 14 of 15 2016 2017 Sewer Base Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family Residential 35.40$ 36.45$ Standard SF rate Single-Family Residential: Low-Income Discount 23.00 23.70 Standard SF rate x 0.65 Multi-Family Residential (townhomes)35.40 36.45 Standard SF rate x 1.00 Multi-Family Residential (apartments & condos)24.90 25.65 Standard SF rate x 0.70 Non-SF Residential (5/8" Meter)26.50 27.30 Standard SF rate x 0.75 Non-SF Residential (1.0" Meter)53.00 54.60 Standard SF rate x 1.50 Non-SF Residential (1.5" Meter)79.50 81.90 Standard SF rate x 2.25 Non-SF Residential (2.0" Meter)124.00 127.70 Standard SF rate x 3.50 Non-SF Residential (3.0" Meter)260.00 267.80 Standard SF rate x 7.25 Non-SF Residential (4.0" Meter)515.00 530.45 Standard SF rate x 14.50 Non-SF Residential (6.0" Meter)1,025.00 1,055.75 Standard SF rate x 29.00 Multi-family rate is per housing unit 2016 2017 Sewer Usage Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Residential 1.80$ 2.15$ Standard rate Non-Residential 4.20 5.00 Standard rate x 2.30 Rates are per 1,000 gallons 2016 2017 Stormwater Base Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family Residential & Duplex 12.35$ 12.95$ Standard SF rate Multi-Family & Churches 95.55 100.35 Standard SF rate x 7.75 Cemeteries & Golf Course 9.30 9.75 Standard SF rate x 0.75 Parks 28.75 30.20 Standard SF rate x 2.35 Schools & Community Centers 46.45 48.80 Standard SF rate x 3.75 Commercial & Industrial 191.00 200.55 Standard SF rate x 15.50 Rates for single-family are per housing unit; all others are per acre 2016 2017 Recycling Rate Category Rate Rate Comments Single-Family 5.60$ 6.50$ Standard rate Multi-Family 5.60 6.50 Standard rate 258 259 260 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member 261 262 and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 263 264 and the following voted against the same: 265 266 WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 267 268 State of Minnesota) 269 ) SS 270 County of Ramsey) 271 Page 15 of 15 272 I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State 273 of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of 274 minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of December, 2016 with the original 275 thereof on file in my office. 276 277 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of December, 2016. 278 279 280 ___________________________ 281 Patrick Trudgeon 282 City Manager 283 284 Seal 285 286 City of Roseville Water Rate Analysis 2017 Total Fixed Costs 2017 Personal Services 642,800 $ Supplies & Maintenance 88,200 Other Charges (net of water purchase)915,750 Less Depreciation (350,000) Capital Outlay 1,209,300 (20-year CIP amortization)** $1,170,700 in 2016; $39K Increase (3.3%) Total 2,506,050 $ = Amount to recover from BASE rates Current Proposed Current Proposed # of Avg.Base Fee % Increase Base Fee Rate Actual Fee per Usage Fee Fee per % Increase Usage Fee Rate ActualCustomersUsage (a)Base Fee Revenue Base Fee (decrease)Revenue Multiplier Calculation 1,000 gals.Revenue 1,000 gals.(decrease)Revenue Multiplier Calculation Single-Family Residential (b)9,497 14 51.60 490,045 53.15 3.00%504,747 Standard SF rate n/a 2.25 299,156 2.25 0.00%299,156 Standard SF rate n/aMulti-Family and Non-Residential 5/8" Meter or 3/4" Meter 70 28 51.60 3,612 53.15 3.00%3,721 Standard SF rate 1.00 2.95 5,811 2.95 0.00%5,811 Standard SF rate +30%31.1%1.0" Meter 276 137 64.50 17,802 66.45 3.02%18,340 Standard SF rate x 1.25 1.25 2.95 111,317 2.95 0.00%111,317 1.5" Meter 210 146 103.00 21,630 106.10 3.01%22,281 Standard SF rate x 2.00 2.00 2.95 90,162 2.95 0.00%90,162 2.0" Meter 144 178 193.50 27,864 199.30 3.00%28,699 Standard SF rate x 3.75 3.75 2.95 75,602 2.95 0.00%75,602 3.0" Meter 42 420 387.00 16,254 398.60 3.00%16,741 Standard SF rate x 7.50 7.50 2.95 51,998 2.95 0.00%51,998 4.0" Meter 1 7 774.00 774 797.20 3.00%797 Standard SF rate x 15.00 15.00 2.95 19 2.95 0.00%19 6.0" Meter 2 3,798 1,548.00 9,288 1,594.45 3.00%9,567 Standard SF rate x 30.00 30.00 2.95 22,408 2.95 0.00%22,408 Total # of Customers 10,242 587,269 604,893 656,473 656,473 Total Annual Revenue 2,349,077 2,419,570 2,625,893 2,625,893 (a)Usage is in thousands of gallons, based on average YEAR-Round usage Total Costs to Recoup 2,506,050 Total Costs to Recoup 2,456,988 (b)As of 11/14/16; 29 households were receiving the discount Revenue over (under) Costs (86,480) Revenue over (under) Costs 168,905 Allowance For Estimated Total Variable Costs St. Paul Roseville Roseville Consumption Blended Unaccounted Gallons Estimated 2017 St. Paul Base Rate Cu Ft Rate Cu Ft Rate *Gal. Rate %Rate Water @ 5%(1000's)Cost Base Rate 0.409 0.429 552,000 Water Rate: Winter 2.640 1.848 1.382 45.0%0.622 0.653 607,500 839,750 Water Rate: Summer 2.740 1.918 1.435 55.0%0.789 0.829 742,500 1,065,238 * Per Contract with SPRWS, Roseville pays 70% of the 'inside City rate'1.820 1.911 1,350,000 2,456,988 = amount to recover from USAGE rates Total Projected Usage (1,000 gals.)1,350,000 (Roseville only - excludes Arden Hills) Attachment B City of Roseville Sanitary Sewer Rate Analysis 2017 Total Fixed Costs 2017 Personal Services 493,100 $ Supplies & Maintenance 50,400 Other Charges (net of sewer treatment)805,550 Less Depreciation (300,000) Capital Outlay 1,309,925 (20-year CIP amortization)** $1,251,450 in 2016; $58K Increase (5%) Total 2,358,975 $ = Amount to recover from BASE rates Current Proposed Current Proposed # of Avg.Base Fee % Increase Base Fee Rate Actual Fee per Usage Fee Fee per % Increase Usage Fee Rate ActualCustomersUsage (a)Base Fee Revenue Base Fee (decrease)Revenue Multiplier Calculation 1,000 gals.Revenue 1,000 gals.(decrease)Revenue Multiplier Calculation Single-Family Residential 9,497 13 35.40 336,194 36.45 2.97%346,166 Standard SF rate n/a 1.80 222,230 2.15 19.44%265,441 Standard SF rate n/aResidential - Multi Family (b)60 10 1.80 1,056 2.15 19.44%1,262 Residential - Apts & Condos (c)189 260 1.80 88,299 2.15 19.44%105,468 Residential - Multi Family (b)239 35.40 8,461 36.45 2.97%8,712 Standard SF rate x 1.00 1.00 Residential - Apts & Condos (c)5,976 24.90 148,802 25.65 3.01%153,284 Standard SF rate x 0.70 0.70 Non-residential - 5/8" Meter or 3/4" Meter 70 35 26.50 1,855 27.30 3.02%1,911 Standard SF rate x 0.75 0.75 4.20 10,181 5.00 19.05%12,121 Standard rate x 2.30 2.33 1.0" Meter 276 47 53.00 14,628 54.60 3.02%15,070 Standard SF rate x 1.50 1.50 4.20 54,633 5.00 19.05%65,039 1.5" Meter 210 73 79.50 16,695 81.90 3.02%17,199 Standard SF rate x 2.25 2.25 4.20 64,704 5.00 19.05%77,028 2.0" Meter 144 167 124.00 17,856 127.70 2.98%18,389 Standard SF rate x 3.50 3.50 4.20 100,953 5.00 19.05%120,182 3.0" Meter 42 274 260.00 10,920 267.80 3.00%11,248 Standard SF rate x 7.25 7.35 4.20 48,353 5.00 19.05%57,563 4.0" Meter 1 11 515.00 515 530.45 3.00%530 Standard SF rate x 14.50 14.55 4.20 47 5.00 19.05%56 6.0" Meter 2 - 1,025.00 6,150 1,055.75 3.00%6,335 Standard SF rate x 29.00 28.96 562,076 578,843 590,456 704,161 Total Annual Revenue 2,248,303 2,315,370 2,361,825 2,816,642 (a)Usage is in thousands of gallons. Residential usage is based on average WINTER usage Total Costs to Recoup 2,358,975 Total Costs to Recoup 2,816,218 (b)Total UB Accounts = 60, total units for base revenue calculation = 239 Revenue over (under) Costs (43,605) Revenue over (under) Costs 424 (c)Total UB Accounts = 189, total units for base revenue calculation = 5,976 Total Variable Costs Total Wastewater Treatment Cost 2,816,218 ** based on Met Council letter dated 08/17/2016 Attachment B City of Roseville Storm Sewer Rate Analysis 2017 Total Costs 2017 Personal Services 404,700$ Supplies & Maintenance 86,500 Other Charges 747,100 Less Depreciation (400,000) Capital Outlay 1,175,500 (20-year CIP amortization)** $1,084,300 in 2016; $91K Increase (8%) Total 2,013,800$ = Amount to recover from rates Current Rates Proposed # of # of Lots /Base Fee % Increase Base Fee Rate Actual Customers Acreage Base Fee Revenue Base Fee (decrease)Revenue Multiplier Calculation Single Family & Duplex 9,497 9,497 12.35 117,288$ 12.95 4.86%122,986$ = Standard SF rate n/a Multi-Family & Churches n/a 350 95.55 33,443 100.35 5.02%35,123 Standard SF rate x 7.75 7.75 Cemeteries & Golf Course (a)n/a 79 9.30 735 9.75 4.84%770 Standard SF rate x 0.75 0.75 Parks (b)n/a 1 28.75 29 30.20 5.04%30 Standard SF rate x 2.35 2.33 Schools & Comm. Centers (c)n/a 153 46.45 7,107 48.80 5.06%7,466 Standard SF rate x 3.75 3.77 Commercial & Industrial n/a 1,450 191.00 276,950 200.55 5.00%290,798 Standard SF rate x 15.50 15.49 435,551 457,173$ Total Annual Revenue 1,742,203$ 1,828,692 $ Total Costs to Recoup 2,013,800 ---> Includes $75K in one-time costs for OK to be Negative: $1.0 M reserves --->Revenue over (under) Costs (185,108) for Stormwater Plan update Attachment B City of Roseville Solid Waste Recycling Rate Analysis 2017 Total Costs 2017 Personal Services 36,800$ Supplies & Maintenance 2,000 Other Charges: Miscellaneous 23,410 Contractor Costs: Customers 438,120 @ 15,469 units Contractor Costs: Public Spaces 1,920 @ 64 units Total 502,250$ = Amount to recover from rates Current Rates Proposed Rates # of Customers Base Fee % Increase Base Fee (Units) *Base Fee Revenue Base Fee (decrease)Revenue Single Family 9,385 5.60 52,556 6.50 16.07%61,003 Multi family 6,084 5.60 34,070 6.50 16.07%39,546 Revenue Sharing from Contractor (quarterly)15,469 12,000 - Ramsey Co. SCORE Grant (quarterly)22,300 21,250 120,926 121,799 Total Quarterly Revenue Total Annual Revenue 483,706 487,194 Total Costs to Recoup 502,250 Revenue over (under) Costs (15,056) Expenses 2016 2017 % Increase Contractor base rate per month 2.31 2.36 2.16% Contractor base rate per quarter 6.93 7.08 # of customers 15,469 15,469 Total Contractor Cost per Quarter 107,200 109,521 Total City Costs per Quarter 15,478 15,553 ----> excludes recycling contract costs Quarterly Costs 122,678$ 125,073$ Revenues Estimated Revenue Sharing from Contractor 12,000 - Estimated Ramsey County SCORE grant 22,300 21,250 Quarterly Non-Customer Revenues 34,300 21,250 Amount Needed from Customers 88,378 103,823 # of Customers 15,469 15,469 Quarterly Base Fee Needed 5.71$ 6.71$ Attachment B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 5, 2016 Item No.: 14.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider Approval of Newly Created Positions in the 2017 City and EDA Budget Page 1 of 3 1 The 2017 budget created several new positons; Assistant City Manager, Sr. Office Assistant, 2 Investigative Aide, and three Fulltime Firefighters. Below are the job summaries and salary 3 ranges for each position. Each positon is fulltime with the exception of the Sr. Office 4 Assistant and the Investigative Aide which are half time; and each will include benefits 5 costing approximately 30% beyond the salary. 6 7 In addition the Council with the approval of the EDA budget, approved for two new positions 8 to be created that will replace the HRA Executive Director and GIS Technician positions and 9 the current staff will move into the new roles. The newly created Housing & Economic 10 Development Program Manager and the Economic Development & GIS Specialist as well as 11 the other new positions have been incorporated in the 2017 budget. 12 13 Assistant City Manager Job Summary: 14 The Assistant City Manager, under the direction of the City Manager, is responsible for directing 15 organization-wide operations for the City. This position participates as an important member of the 16 City’s leadership team. The Assistant City Manager plans, and directs a variety of technical, 17 administrative, and supervisory personnel in planning, organizing, directing, and implementing of the 18 city’s administrative division including clerical operations, human resources, communications, 19 volunteer coordination, city clerk functions, and elections as well as acting as a liaison to City 20 commissions, overseeing city operations, and leading special projects 21 22 Salary Range: Internally this position falls into grade 18 of the exempt ranges $49.17 – $59.24/Hr. or 23 $102,274 - $123,219 annually. 24 25 Housing & Economic Development Program Manager Job Summary: 26 Under the direction the Community Development Director the Housing & Economic Development 27 Program Manager is responsible for all aspects of the City's housing economic development programs. 28 This position helps the department to define, establish and attain overall goals and objectives of the 29 housing and economic development arena with the goal of business retention, expansion and attraction, 30 job growth, and tax base expansion. 31 Page 2 of 3 Salary Range: Internally this position falls into grade 13 of the exempt ranges $35.08 – $42.26/Hr. or 32 $72,966 - $87,901 annually. 33 34 Economic Development & GIS Specialist Job Summary: 35 The Economic Development & GIS Specialist performs skilled technical work in the field of economic 36 development and GIS that supports the City goals and strategic vision. This position will coordinate 37 workflows, manage applicable service requirements, and perform diversified economic development and 38 GIS services including planning, coordinating, implementing, and managing the divisions GIS operations 39 and will take the lead on projects to include research as well as mentoring interns as needed. 40 41 The Economic Development & GIS Specialist partners with the Community Development Director and 42 Housing and Economic Development Program Manager in the development and implementation of 43 economic development programs for the City of Roseville with the goal of business retention, expansion 44 and attraction, job growth, and tax base expansion. This position is also responsible for the performing 45 and managing of GIS operations within the Community Development Department. 46 47 Salary Range: Internally this position falls into grade 10 of the non-exempt ranges $29.17 – 48 $35.14/Hr. or $60,673 - $73,091 annually. 49 50 51 (1/2X) Sr. Office Assistant Job Summary: 52 The Senior Office Assistant is the front line support for the Administration Department and assists staff, 53 council, and commissioners in accomplishing their responsibilities to meet the City’s goals and 54 objectives. This position provides mid-level clerical and customer service support exercising discretion 55 while building relationships with the community, City Council, Commissioners, and staff. Assists the 56 department with meeting scheduling, agendas, analysis, reports, record keeping, communications, 57 departmental notices and publications and serving the general public needs. 58 59 Salary Range: Internally this position falls into grade 6 of the non-exempt ranges $21.26 –$25.62/Hr. 60 or $22,110 - $26,645 annually due to its half-time FTE status. 61 62 (1/2X) Investigative Aide Job Summary: 63 The Investigative Aid is a non-sworn position providing technical and clerical support for the 64 Investigations Unit of the Police Department. The position provides entry-level clerical, technical, and 65 customer service support while building relationships with the community, external agencies, and staff. 66 The Investigative Aid assists staff in achieving their goal of providing high quality criminal case 67 investigation and preparation for the City of Roseville. 68 69 Salary Range: Internally this position falls into grade 4 of the non-exempt ranges $18.56 –$22.36/Hr. 70 or $19,302 - $23,254 annually due to its half-time FTE status. 71 72 Full-time Firefighters Job Summary: 73 This position protects life and property by performing fire prevention, fire suppression, inspections, 74 public education, hazardous materials incident mitigation, and rescue and emergency medical services. 75 The Firefighter maintains fire equipment, apparatus and facilities, participates in training; and 76 performs intermediate troubleshooting and analysis, makes recommendations, and keeps records as 77 required. This position drives the standards of safety, cleanliness, and high quality of Fire services. 78 Page 3 of 3 79 Salary Range: Internally this position falls into the fire union contract (IAFF) with starting wage of 80 $19.75/Hr. or $57,512 annually due to the annual work schedule of 2912 hours for FTE status. 81 82 POLICY OBJECTIVE 83 The 2017 Budget process identified priorities and funding mechanisms for the City to provide needed 84 services and programs. Hiring personnel to fill the newly created positions will assist in implementing 85 these priorities. 86 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 87 The proposed City and EDA budget for 2017 will cover the costs of the positions. 88 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 89 Based on the passage of the 2017 City Budget, staff recommends approval of the newly 90 created positions and recommends that the City Council authorize staff to begin the process of 91 recruiting and filling the newly created positions. 92 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 93 Motion to approve the newly created positions and authorize staff to begin the process of 94 recruiting and filling the newly created positions. 95 Prepared by: Eldona Bacon, Human Resources Manager (651) 792-7025 Attachments: None 96 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 12-5-2016Date: Item No.: 14.d Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Authorize Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture for the Purpose of Deer Reduction Page 1 of 1 BACKGROUND 1 After much Community, City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission discussion, on October 24, 2 2016 the City Council authorized a deer reduction effort to be conducted by sharpshooters from the United 3 States Department of Agriculture. The exact dates are yet to be finalized, but it is expected to occur 4 sometime between January and March of 2017. 5 6 Attached is a standard Cooperative Service Agreement between the City of Roseville and the United States 7 Department of Agriculture. It has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 8 9 The locations that are expected for reduction efforts include; Central Park East, Ladyslipper Park, 10 Owasso Hills Park and the Roseville Leaf Compost Site. 11 12 POLICY OBJECTIVE 13 This effort is consistent with addressing resident’s concerns and desires and with the City Wildlife 14 Management Ordinance. 15 16 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 17 The cost for reducing the Roseville deer herd by up to 20 is anticipated to be $6,751.12. 18 19 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 20 Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the attached Cooperative Service Agreement with the 21 United States Department of Agriculture and all other necessary documents to perform the Wildlife 22 Management Services in Roseville, all with final City Attorney approval. 23 24 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 25 Motion authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the attached Cooperative Service Agreement 26 with the United States Department of Agriculture and all other necessary documents to perform the deer 27 reduction services in Roseville, with final City Attorney approval. 28 Prepared by: Lonnie Brokke, Director Attachments: A: Cooperative Service Agreement ATTACHMENT A WS-ER (6/14) Agreement No.: 17 7227 8089 RA WBS: AP.RA.RX27.72.0117 COOPERATIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT between CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MN and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS) WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS) ARTICLE 1 The purpose of this Cooperative Service Agreement is to cooperate in a wildlife damage management project as described in the attached Work Plan. ARTICLE 2 APHIS-WS has statutory authority under the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101Stat. 1329-331, 7 U.S.C. 426c), to cooperate with States, local jurisdictions, individuals, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions while conducting a program of wildlife services involving mammal and bird species that are reservoirs for zoonotic diseases, or animal species that are injurious and/or a nuisance to, among other things, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wildlife, and human health and safety. ARTICLE 3 APHIS-WS and City of Roseville mutually agree: 1. The parties’ authorized representatives who shall be responsible for carrying out the provisions of this Agreement shall be: City of Roseville: Lonnie Brokke, Parks and Recreation Director City of Roseville, MN 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 651-792-7101 APHIS-WS: Gary Nohrenberg State Director USDA, APHIS, WS 644 Bayfield St., Ste. 215 St. Paul, MN 55107 651-224-6027 2 2. To meet as determined necessary by either party to discuss mutual program interests, accomplishments, needs, technology, and procedures to maintain or amend the Work Plan (Attachment A). Personnel authorized to attend meetings under this Agreement shall be the City Manager, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director or his/her designees, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department and/or local Law Enforcement, and the WS State Director or his/her designee, and/or those additional persons authorized and approved by the City of Roseville, and the WS State Director. 3. APHIS-WS shall perform services more fully set forth in the Work Plan, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The parties may mutually agree in writing, at any time during the term of this Agreement, to amend, modify, add or delete services from the Work Plan. ARTICLE 4 City of Roseville agrees: 1. To authorize APHIS-WS to conduct direct control activities to reduce human health and safety risks and property damage associated with white-tailed deer. These activities are defined in the Work Plan (Attachment A). APHIS-WS will be considered an invitee on the lands/property controlled by the City of Roseville. The City will be required to exercise reasonable care to warn APHIS-WS as to dangerous conditions or activities in the project areas. 2. To reimburse APHIS-WS for costs of services provided under this Agreement up to but not exceeding the amount specified in the Financial Plan (Attachment B). The City of Roseville will begin processing for payment invoices submitted by APHIS- WS within 30 days of receipt. The City of Roseville ensures and certifies that it is not currently debarred or suspended and is free of delinquent Federal debt. 3. To designate to APHIS-WS the City of Roseville authorized individual whose responsibility shall be the coordination and administration of activities conducted pursuant to this Agreement. 4. To notify APHIS-WS verbally or in writing as far in advance as practical of the date and time of any proposed meeting related to the program. 5. APHIS-WS shall be responsible for administration and supervision of the program. 6. There will be no equipment with a procurement price of $5,000 or more per unit purchased directly with funds from the cooperator for use solely on this project. All other equipment purchased for the program is and will remain the property of APHIS-WS. 7. To coordinate with APHIS-WS before responding to all media requests. 3 8. To obtain the appropriate permits for removal activities for white-tailed deer and other nuisance or damaging wildlife species as needed and to list USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services as subpermitees. 9. To coordinate with Wildlife Services for the removal and/or disposal of wildlife species removed. ARTICLE 5 APHIS-WS Agrees: 1. To conduct activities for the City of Roseville as described in the Work and Financial Plan of this agreement. 2. To designate to the City of Roseville the authorized APHIS-WS individual who shall be responsible for the joint administration of the activities conducted pursuant to this Cooperative Service Agreement. 3. To bill the City of Roseville quarterly for actual costs incurred by APHIS-WS during the performance of services agreed upon and specified in the Work Plan. APHIS-WS shall keep records and receipts of all reimbursable expenditures hereunder for a period of not less than one year from the date of completion of the services provided under this Agreement and the City of Roseville shall have the right to inspect and audit such records. 4. To coordinate with the City of Roseville before responding to all media requests. ARTICLE 6 This Agreement is contingent upon the passage by Congress of an appropriation from which expenditures may be legally met and shall not obligate APHIS-WS upon failure of Congress to so appropriate. This Agreement may also be reduced or terminated if Congress only provides APHIS-WS funds for a finite period under a Continuing Resolution. ARTICLE 7 APHIS-WS assumes no liability for any actions or activities conducted under this Cooperative Service Agreement except to the extent that recourse or remedies are provided by Congress under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2401(b), and 2671-2680). ARTICLE 8 Pursuant to Section 22, Title 41, United States Code, no member of or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit to arise therefrom. 4 ARTICLE 9 Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent APHIS-WS from entering into separate agreements with any other organization or individual for the purpose of providing wildlife damage management services exclusive of those provided for under this agreement. ARTICLE 10 The City of Roseville certifies that APHIS-WS has advised the City that there may be private sector service providers available to provide wildlife management services that the City is seeking from APHIS-WS. ARTICLE 11 The performance of wildlife damage management actions by APHIS-WS under this agreement is contingent upon a determination by APHIS-WS that such actions are in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and any other applicable federal statutes. APHIS-WS will not make a final decision to conduct requested wildlife damage management actions until it has made the determination of such compliance. ARTICLE 12 This Cooperative Service Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties in writing. Also, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement of the parties in writing, or by one party provided that party notifies the other in writing at least 120 days prior to effecting such action. Further, in the event the City of Roseville does not provide necessary funds, APHIS-WS is relieved of the obligation to provide services under this agreement. 5 Agreement No.: 17 7227 8089 RA WBS: AP.RA.RX27.72.0117 In accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the Department of Treasury requires a Taxpayer Identification Number for individuals or businesses conducting business with the agency. Roseville Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) __________________ CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MN BY: ________________________ ______________________ ____________, Mayor Date City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 BY: ________________________ ______________________ ____________, City Manager Date City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES BY: _______________________________________ _______________________ Gary Nohrenberg Date State Director, MN USDA, APHIS, WS 644 Bayfield St. Suite 215 St. Paul, MN 55107 6 ATTACHMENT A WORK PLAN INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized to protect property, human health and safety, agriculture and natural resources from damage caused by wildlife. The primary authority for Wildlife Services (WS) is the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101Stat. 1329-331, 7 U.S.C. 426c). Wildlife Services activities are conducted in cooperation with other Federal, State and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The APHIS WS program uses an Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) approach (sometimes referred to as IPM or “Integrated Pest Management”) in which a series of methods may be used or recommended to reduce wildlife damage. IWDM is described in Chapter 1, 1-7 of the Animal Damage Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, 1994). These methods include the alteration of cultural practices as well as habitat and behavioral modification to prevent damage. However, controlling wildlife damage may require that the offending animal(s) are killed or that the populations of the offending species be reduced. PURPOSE The City of Roseville, MN has requested assistance from Wildlife Services in managing nuisance and damaging wildlife species within the City of Roseville. PLANNED WILDLIFE SERVICES ACTIVITIES WS personnel will remove deer from City-designated control areas and on private property where written permission has been obtained using suppressed firearms equipped with night vision or thermal imaging scopes. Spotlights may also be used while conducting control activities. Safe shooting zones and safe back-drops will be established for all control areas. WS will prioritize public safety during all control operations and utilize a minimum of 2 WS personnel when conducting deer control work. Most deer control activities will be conducted at dusk/night. All control activities will be coordinated with the Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, or a designee(s). WS personnel will advise local law enforcement and the appropriate local Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation officer when firearm related wildlife control work is being conducted. Under this agreement, WS will provide up to 8 scouting/bait site maintenance visits and up to 4 visits to conduct white-tailed deer control activities. The number of site visits provided may be altered to ensure that funding expenditures do not exceed the amount established in the Financial Plan (Attachment B) of this document. WS will use generally accepted wildlife damage management tools, equipment and techniques to conduct all removal activities under this agreement. EFFECTIVE DATES This cooperative agreement shall become effective on December 6, 2016 and shall expire on September 30, 2017. 7 ATTACHMENT B FINANCIAL PLAN City of Roseville, MN 125 white-tailed deer and nuisance wildlife control project Personnel Costs …………………….…………………………………...………$ 4,298.37 Vehicle Fuel……………………….……………………………...…..….…....... $ 211.20 Supplies………………………………………………………….……....……….$ 800.00 Sub-Total (Direct Costs) ……………………………………..…..…..………….$ 5,309.57 Pooled Job Costs…………………………………………………………………$ 584.05 Indirect Costs…..……………………..……………………………………..…...$ 857.50 TOTAL ………….……..….…$ 6,751.12 The distribution of the budget from this Financial Plan may vary as necessary, but may not exceed $6,751.12. Financial Point of Contact City of Roseville: Lonnie Brokke Phone: 651-792-7101 APHIS-WS: Connie Timm Phone: 218-327-3350 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:December 5, 2016 Item No.: 15.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Pet Store Regulation Discussion Page 1 of 2 BACKGROUND 1 As a result of recent media coverage regarding the condition of animals being sold at the Har Mar Pet 2 Store, the City Council held a discussion on September 19, 2016 (Attachment A) to consider ways to 3 regulate the sale of animals in Roseville. The City Council heard testimony from Christine Coughlin of 4 the Minnesota Chapter of the Humane Society of America as well as Gary Papineau, owner of the Har 5 Mar Pet Shop and two other pet store owners regarding the sales of cats and dogs. Ms. Coughlin 6 suggested that the City Council consider an ordinance that would prohibit the sale of dogs and cats by a 7 pet store but would allow for a collaboration between a pet store and animal shelter or rescue 8 organization to showcase adoptable dogs and cats. The Humane Society of America has drafted a 9 potential ordinance for consideration. (Attachment B). Ms. Coughlin has also provided a letter from 10 The Human Society of America, Animal Folks Minnesota, and the Animal Human Society urging the 11 City Council to consider passing the ordinance. (Attachment C) 12 Staff has made Mr. Papineau aware that this matter will be discussed by the City Council. 13 As a way of background, staff has provided the September 19, 2016 RCA and attachments for the City 14 Council to review. (Attachment D). 15 POLICY OBJECTIVE 16 To determine whether pet stores should be regulated and/or licensed in the City of Roseville. 17 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 18 City costs cannot be determined at this time. Adopting an ordinance will require staff time to ensure 19 compliance with the ordinance. 20 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 21 Staff suggests that the City Council review the information and discusses next steps that the City should 22 take, including considering an ordinance regarding the sale of dogs and cats by pet stores. 23 Page 2 of 2 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 24 Provide direction on whether to bring forward an ordinance regarding the sale of dogs and cats by pet 25 stores. 26 27 Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager (651) 792-7021 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com Attachments: A: City Council Minutes dated September 19, 2016 B: Draft Ordinance regarding the sale of dogs and cats by pet stores provided by the Humane Society of America. C: Letter from representatives of the Human Society of America, Animal Folks Minnesota, and the Animal Human Society D: September 19, 2016 RCA and Attachments. RegularCityCouncilMeeting Monday, September19, 2016 Page4 b.PetStoreRegulationandLicensingDiscussion AsdetailedintheRCA, CityManagerTrudgeonreferencedarecentnewspaper articleregardingtheconditionofanimalsbeingsoldattheHarMarPetStore (At- tachmentA), andconsiderablecommunitydiscussionandconcernfollowingthe article. Mr. Trudgeonadvisedtheintentoftonight’sdiscussionwastoprovidedi- rectiontostaffastheCityCouncilconsideredpotentialregulationorlicensingof petstores, notcurrentlydone. Mr. TrudgeonnotedtherewerecurrentlyfourpetstoreslocatedinRoseville: PetSmart, PETCO, ChuckandDon’s, andHarMarPetStore, allhavingbeenno- tifiedoftonight’sdiscussion. AsnotedintheRCA, CityManagerTrudgeon, in researchingothercommunities, advisedthattheCityofSt. Paulwasfoundtoli- censepetstoresandprovidedsomelevelofinspection, buthehadnotspokenper- sonallytheirstaffastothelogisticsoftheirefforts. Mr. Trudgeonintroduced, andMayorRoewelcomedrepresentativesoftheMin- nesotaChapteroftheHumanSocietyofAmerica (HSA), havingpreviouslymet withCityManagerTrudgeontoprovideinformationabouttheoperationofpet storesandsharingtheirthoughtsonapossiblepetstoreordinanceforRoseville, includingasampleordinancerecentlyadoptedbyEastpointe, Michigan (Attach- mentB). ChristineCoughlin, MinnesotaChapterHSA Ms. Coughlin notedthishadcometotheirattention, asithadthecity’s, specifi- callyafterthearticleandresultingcommunitydiscontent. Ms. Coughlinencour- agedtheCityCounciltoconsiderasystemicandlong-termsolutionratherthana bandaidsolutionasitconsideredtheissueandpossibleordinance, aswellasit beingminimallyburdensomeforthecityanditsstaff. Ms. Coughlinrecommendedadualeffort, providingasystemicapproach, butnot over-structuringregulations. Ms. Coughlinreviewedrealisticandpublicormedia perceivedreviewofanimalsarrivingIpetstores, theirconditions, andtheirpossi- blefurtherhealthdeteriorationdependingonwheretheyoriginatedfrombefore arrivingatthestore. Ms. CoughlinstatedtheHSA’sgravestconcernwassourcingoftheanimalsarriv- ingatpetstores. Ms. Coughlinreviewedsomeofthosesources, someresponsible animalbreedersandotherdefinedas “puppymills” wherecommercialmasspro- ductionbreedingisdonewiththefocusonprofitsversusanimalwelfare. Ms. Coughlin advisedtheHSA haddocumentationavailablethroughundercoverin- vestigationandresearch. Ms. Coughlin notedofapproximatelytwomillionani- malsproducedannuallyanddirectlyfunneledtopetstores, 95% ofbreedclubs adoptedapositionwheretheydiscouragedordidn’tallowtheirmemberstosellto petstoresduetothepuppymillsissues. Attachment A RegularCityCouncilMeeting Monday, September19, 2016 Page5 Ms. Coughlin reviewedthatregulatoryoversightofcertifiedpetstoresandin- spectionsbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture (USDA). However, Ms. Coughlin advisedthatUSDAstandardswereofalegalnature, andarenot compliedwithinamajorityofthosefacilities. Ms. CoughlinstatedthesolutionrecommendedbytheHASwasgrowinginpopu- larityaroundthecountry, withapproximately176jurisdictionshavingadoptedit andnolongerallowingforcommercialbreddogsandcats. Ms. Coughlin rec- ommendedthattheCityofRosevilleadoptasimilarordinance, encouragingthem topartnerwithsheltersandrescueshelterstoco-hostadoptioneventsorprovide spaceforthoseevents. OfthefourpetstoresinRoseville, Ms. Coughlinadvised thatthreeofthemwerealreadyprovidingthisoption, andofthelarger24pet storesinMinnesota, onlyoneremainsnotdoingit, eventhoughitwascommer- ciallyfeasible. Ms. Coughlin referencednumeroussuccessstories, offeringtoprovidethatin- formationtothecityattheirrequest; offeringtheservicesoftheHAStowork withthepetstoretomakethishumanetransition, andnotrequiringacommitment tochangetheirbusinessmodel. Ms. Coughlin advisedthattheHASwouldpro- videinfrastructureandpromotionassistanceforthistransition. MayorRoenotedthearticlereferencinga “USDAAnimalInspectorReport,” and askedhowaninspectorwouldendupatapetstorefacilitytoperformaninspec- tion; whethercomplaint-drivenorifperiodicallydoneforpetstores bythe USDA. Ms. Coughlinnotedshehadquestionedthearticleinthatregardaswell, noting petstoresarenottypicallyregulatedbytheUSDA, includingthisparticularHar Marstore. However, Ms. CoughlinnotedthisstorehasaClassBlicense, aclass undertheAnimalWelfareActforbrokersanddealerssellingsomeexoticani- mals, andthussubjecttositeinspections. ForclarificationandattherequestofMayorRoe, Ms. Coughlin statedthatthe USDAinspectorinspectedthefacilitynotindividualanimals. MayorRoereferencedthemodelordinance, notingcertificatesofUSDAinspec- tionandveterinaryrecords, andinnotingmultipleviolationswithbreedersfrom Iowa, heaskedhowandifthoserecordswerereadilyavailableorhowtheycould beaccessedbythegeneralpublicorifaformalpublicinformationrequestwas requiredforthataccess. Ms. CoughlinrespondedthattheUSDArecordswerereadilyavailableviaonline search, buttheCDI’sBoardofAnimalHealthattheStatelevelheldrecordsas welluntillegislationfordataprivacylawrestrictionsin2014makingthoseCDI’s nolongeravailabletothepublic. Attachment A RegularCityCouncilMeeting Monday, September19, 2016 Page6 Ms. CoughlinadvisedthattheHSAhasaspreadsheetavailablelisting2015facili- tiessupplyingpuppiestothatparticularpetstoreinIowareferenced, andoffered toprovidethatinformationtotheCityCouncilattheirrequest. CouncilmemberMcGeheeaskediftheHSAhadavailableanymodelordinance languageforamphibiansaswell. Ms. Coughlin clarifiedthatthemodelordinancetheywererecommendingtothe Citywoulddealonlywithpuppies, dogsandkittens, asdidtheEastpointe, Michi- ganmodel, eventhoughtheCityCouncilcouldexpanditattheirdiscretion. Ms. Coughlin advisedthattheHSA’srationaleinlimitingtheordinancetodogsand cats, wasbasedontheirresearchandinvestigationsprovidingalinkandstrong groundsforcourtchallengesto-date. CouncilmemberMcGeheeaskediftherewassimilaractivityregulatingtheactivi- tyforimportationofexoticspeciesofbirdsandaddressingtheirbreeding. Ms. Coughlin advisedthatshecouldprovideadditionalinformationonthatifso desired; however, shenotedthatthiswasnotherareaofexpertise, eventhough theirimportandlongevitywasalsoofgraveconcerntotheHSA. PublicComment KristinSmith, PetStoreOwnerinBlaine, MN Ms. SmithadvisedthatHarMarPetStorewasherbiggestcompetitor; andstated herreasonforspeakingtonightwasthatanydecisionmadebytheRosevilleCity Councilcouldnotonlyaffectitscommunityfacilities, butalsothethreeother storesintheStateofMNthatweresellingpuppies, hersincluded. Ms. SmithprovidedherperceptionofthesituationattheHarMarPetStore, ad- dressingvariousailmentsobservedbytheUSDAinspectoraddressedinthenews article. Ms. Smithnotedtheseweretypicalailmentsandcouldresultevenifand whendogs – orothersimilaranimals – werebeingwell-caredfor. Ms. Smith notedthatwhenaUSDAinspectorcomesin, theydidasnapshotinspectionon thatparticularday, andwasalwaysanunannouncedvisit VanessaRojas, St. PaulPetlandStoreOwner Ms. Rojasnotedsomeailmentscouldalsobearesultofstressforthepet. Ms. SmithandMs. Rojas providedtheirperspectiveonpetstoreoperationsand situations, andansweredquestionsoftheCityCouncilasapplicable. AttherequestofCouncilmemberWillmus, Ms. SmithadvisedthatnotallUSDA inspectorswereveterinarians. Attachment A RegularCityCouncilMeeting Monday, September19, 2016 Page7 Ms. Rojasstatedshewelcomedaccessandtransparencyinherstore, andre- viewedherhistoryfrombeinginoppositiontoPetlandtonowowningthestore, whichhadencouragedhertoworktoprovideabridgeforbothsidesinworking cooperativelywhetherasananimalrightsactivistorasabreeder. Ms. Rojasnot- edthishadresultedinherbusinessgrowingoverthelasttwoyearsfrom7em- ployeesto34. Ms. Smithagreed, notingthatallpetstoreswereuniqueandpersonalitiesoftheir ownersalsounique, butallfacingthesamedailychallenges. Ms. Smithcau- tioned that, whilenotfamiliarwithMr. PapineauofHarMarPetStore, thedeci- sionsmadebytheRosevilleCityCouncilwerefarreachingforthesesmallbusi- nessowners, theiremployees, customersandtheirverylivelihoods. Ms. Smith opinedthattheUSDAstandardswereveryminimalandeverybreedershouldbe abletocomplywiththemandensurecustomersthatanimalsarebeingwellcared for. Ms. Rojasnotedthatitwasafull-timejobcaringforanimalsinthisenvironment, andwhiletheUSDAwasn’tperfect, opinedthatthealternativewithnochecks andbalancesinplacewasnotagoodsolutioneither. Ms. SmithandMs. Rojasprovidedfurthercommentsonthelongevityofpet stores; impactofinternettradefornationalandinternationalsalesofpets; im- provementstothebreedingandinspectionprocess; andchangesintheindustryto addressbreedingpracticesforphysicalandmentalhealthofanimals. Further commentincludeddefiningtheactualgoalofthemodelordinance, differencesin petstoresandrescueorganizationsandassurancestopurchasesofananimal’s breedingdependingontheirsource; andmanyvariablesofpetsbasedontheir personalities, temperamentsandbreeding. WiththenumberofpetstoresintheUnitedStatesstillsellingpuppiesidentified asfewerthan1,000, Ms. Rojasadvisedthattherewere4,000petrescueorganiza- tions. Ms. Rojasnotedthiswastheonlybusinessofwhichshewasawarethat providedyoucouldoperatealegalbusinesswithintheletterofthelaw, yetstill you’reyourethicsquestionedifsomeonefoundfaultwithyourbusiness. Ms. Ro- jassuggestedeveryoneworktogether – theUSDAandpetstoreowners – toup- datethecurrentAnimalWelfareAct. Ms. SmithandMs. Rojasaddressedadditionalcommentsrelatedtoothercities havinginitiallypassedanordinancesimilartothemodelprovided, andsubse- quentlyrejectingthem (e.g. Phoenix, AZ); USDAinspectionsrelatedto “puppy mills;” unlicensedorunregulatedbreedersasanalternativetoUSDAself- reporting; andrelationsofpetstoreownersandleveloftrustwiththeirpetbreed- ers. Attachment A RegularCityCouncilMeeting Monday, September19, 2016 Page8 MayorRoethanked Ms. SmithandMs. Rojasfortheconsiderableinformation theyprovided. CouncilmemberMcGeheeaskedadditionalquestionsrelatedtobreedingrequire- mentsforpetstorefacilitiesandtheirlicensing; withMs. SmithandMs. Rojas clarifyingitwasmoreimportanttoconsideranimalcarebasedonthenumberof availablestaffversusthenumberofbreedingpets. Ms. Smithprovidedseveralhandoutsforfuturereference. GaryPapineau, OwnerofHarMarPetShop Mr. PapineaustatedhisprideinHarMarPetShop, havingworkedtherestarting atage19, andownedthefacilityfortwenty-sevenyears. Ms. Papineauadvised thathehadcarriedaUSDAlicenseforapproximately12 – 15years; andre- viewedpastviolationsthatheconsideredinsignificant (e.g. expiredmedications missed). Mr. Papineaureviewedthenewsarticleandviolationscitedinthearticlebythis newUSDAinspector, notonlynewtothejobbutalsonotaveterinarian. Ms. Papineausuggestedifthisinspectorhadusedcommonsense, themajorityofthe violationswouldnothaveoccurred. Mr. Papineaunotedthat, whenpetsarriveon site, itwasoftena “waitandsee” situationtoobservethepetsandtheirhealthsit- uationsastowhatifanytreatmentwasrequired. Mr. PapineaunotedtheEnglishbulldogwithcherryeyewashispersonalpetthat heusedforbreeding, andadvisedthiswasarecurringhealthissue, butwascer- tainlynotcontagiousandfrequentlyhappenedwhenapetwasneuteredorspayed. Immediatelyaftertheinspection, Mr. Papineauadvisedhehadtakenhispettothe veterinarian, ashehaddoneinthepastforthiscondition, withtheveterinarian advisingthatthesituationcouldbetakencareofnowordelayeduntiltheother eyewasaddressed. Specifictorodentscitedashavingeyeproblems, Mr. Papineauadvisedthatthe particularhamsterwasblind, butstillactive, andsuchanimalswereoftenofin- teresttochildrenseekingsuchapet, andnotedhefrequently “gifted” suchpetsto thosechildren. Mr. Papineaustatedthispetwasn’tinneedofmedicalassistance thatwouldbeevidentwithalossofhair, losingweightorothermedicalconcerns, andthereforenotindistress. Mr. Papineauadvisedthat, ifadoghasa “kennelcough,” whichwasahighly contagiousissue, theanimalwouldbeisolateduntilitburneditselfout, similarto acold. Specifictothedeceasedbabyhedgehog, havingdiedtwoweekspriorthatwas stillinsidewithanadulthedgehog, Mr. Papineauadvisedthatthemotherhad Attachment A RegularCityCouncilMeeting Monday, September19, 2016 Page9 abandonedherlittercausingtheirdemise, andwhilehehadcleanedouttheken- nels, thisbaby hedgehog, aboutthesizeofanickel, hadbeenunfortunately missedbyhim. Mr. Papineaustatedthatheinspectedallkennelsfromwhomhepurchased, and hadfoundnohealthconcernsto-date. Mr. Papineaunoteditwasnotunusualfor himtotakeanimalsfromhisstoretotheveterinarian4-5timesperday; andnoted thathisstorewasstaffedby3full-timeand7part-timeemployees. Mr. Papineau opinedthatasataxpayerofvarioustaxingagencies, hisbusinessalsoprovideda benefittothecity, aswellasbringingcustomersfromaroundthemetropolitanar- ea, notjustRoseville. Whiletheotherthreestoresmentionedperformedpetrescues, Mr. Papineau opinedeveryoneshouldchoosetheiroption, furtheropiningthattheindustry marketwouldweedoutthosepetstoresnotperformingwell. Mr. Papineaustated helovedtheanimalsathisstore, andaskedthattheCityCouncilnotsingleouta petshop, butadoptanylegislationorordinanceequally, andalsoaddressrescue petsaswell. Mr. Papineaustatedhewasnotopposedtoinspectionofhisbusi- ness, butaskedthathenotberequiredtochangehisbusinessmodel. CouncilPositions / DirectiontoStaff CouncilmemberWillmusstatedheremainedinterestedinlookingatsomecon- trolsandnotedtheinterestingperspectiveprovidedbyOwenBachhuber. While needingtolookatthissituationmoreclosely, CouncilmemberWillmusexpressed interestincontinuingtheconversation; statinghispersonalpreferencetomove awayfromthesaleofkittensandpuppiesinpetshopsandconsideranationwide modelforpetadoption. CouncilmemberLalibertenotedtheconsiderableamountofinformationprovided tonightthatwillhelpfulgoingforwardinassessingtheissue. Councilmember Lalibertestatedshewasalsolookingatmorecontrols, fromvariousperspectives, includingwhetherthecityconsideredtheUSDAcriteriawasadequateormetob- jectives, orifstateregulationsweresufficient. CouncilmemberLalibertenoted thecitywasnotsetuptoprovidepetstoreinspections, causinghertostrugglego- ingdownthatroad. CouncilmemberLalibertespokeinsupportoftheadoption modelatthispoint. CouncilmemberMcGehee statedshecameintotonight’smeetingstronglylean- inginthedirectionoftheadoptionmodel, butnotedtheeducationshe’dreceived aboutUSDArulesandpethousingenvironments. CouncilmemberMcGehee statedsheunderstoodbeingabreederofexoticanimalswasanimprovementover purchasingpetsontheInternetorhavingthempoachedandbroughtinillegally, butagreeditwasacomplicateddecision. HavingheardMr. Papineau’stestimony onsomeoftheperceivedviolations, CouncilmemberMcGeheestatedshe’dlike moretimetoconsiderthisissue. CouncilmemberMcGeheeagreedwithhercol- Attachment A RegularCityCouncilMeeting Monday, September19, 2016 Page10 leaguesthatthecitydidn’thavetheexpertisetobecomepetstoreinspectors, and stated shewasn’tinterestedingoingthatroute. However, Councilmember McGeheestatedshewasunsurehowtoproceedatthispointandbasedonthein- formationjustprovided. MayorRoenotedCouncilmemberEttenmaywishtoweighinonthisissueatfu- turediscussionsaswell. AttherequestofMayorRoe, Ms. Smith, Ms. Rojas, andMr. Papineauresponded totheprocedureforanimalsatstores24/7andtheircareovernight; withmallse- curitymonitoringthepetsovernightandalertingpetstoreownersofanyobserved issuesandthatpetthentypicallytakenhomewiththestoreownerforcloserob- servationovernight. Fromhislaypersonbackgroundresearch, MayorRoereviewedhisinterpretation oftheUSDAreviewofbreederswiththreeormorefemaledogsandlicensingfor storessellingcertainexoticspeciesandregulationofsalesnotpersontopersonor petstoretransactions, orontheInternet. Ms. RojasadvisedthatherstorewasinspectedbySt. PaulAnimalControland AmericanKennelClub (AKC) toretainhercertificationwiththem. Ms. Rojas statedherstorewasanopenbook, andreiteratedherinvitationforCouncilmem- berstopersonallytourherfacility. AttherequestofMayorRoe, Ms. RojasprovidedareviewoftheAKCCertifica- tioninspectionprocess. Ms. Smithnotedunofficial “inspections” werealsocontinualinhercasebycon- sumers, mallstaff, andothersobservingheroperationandfacility. WhilerecognizingthepassionfortheirworkofMs. SmithandMs. Rojasandher respectforthepridetheyhadfortheirsmallbusinesses, CouncilmemberLaliberte opinedthatthecitycouldn’tfullyconsiderhowtheiractionmayimpactanother city. Specifically, withthereferencedinspectionatHarMarPetStoreandresult- ingcommunityrage, aswellassomeonefrequentingHarMarMallobservingthe facilityandasaresidentinthatvicinity, CouncilmemberLaliberteadvisedthat shehadheardconcernsformanyyearsaboutthatoperation. Councilmember LalibertestatedherconcernwaswhattheCityofRosevilleexpectedfromits businessesandtheanimalswithinthecity. Asdirectiontostaff, andwithoutobjection, MayorRoenotedcouncilmembers wantedtogivemorethoughttotheinformationreceivedto-date, seekadditional research; andsuggestedstaffmayconsiderthisasatopicforpubliccommenton SpeakUp! Roseville, aswellasothercommunicationsourceswiththegoalofre- ceivingfeedback. Attachment A Attachment B Roseville Pet Store Ordinance The problem: An alarming situation exists in the city of Roseville pertaining to a pet store: • An April 21, 2016 inspection report conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) of the Har Mar Pet Shop revealed various animals inside the pet store suffering from a variety of distressing conditions as a result of inadequate care. • For years, complaints have been filed by citizens against the Har Mar Pet Shop in regard to conditions for animals and law enforcement and humane agents have made repeated visits to the store. • The Har Mar Pet Shop has purchased puppies from various dog breeders and brokers that have been cited for violations of the Animal Welfare Act including lack of veterinary care, lack of cleaning, sanitization, pest control, housekeeping, and broken, hazardous enclosures. The above actions are out of step with Roseville community values. What is needed: Enact a pet store ordinance in the city of Roseville that prohibits pet stores from selling dogs and cats acquired from mass breeding facilities while allowing the stores to host adoption events with animal shelters and rescues. How it works: This ordinance is not designed to put pet stores out of business. Instead it provides them with the opportunity to transition to a humane business model consistent with Roseville community values. The model does not impose a costly burden on the city and is business-friendly, allowing pet stores to sell quality products and services and host pet adoption events at their store in conjunction with area shelters and rescues. These adoption events not only help decrease pet overpopulation and homelessness, they also encourage those who adopt to purchase the products and services they need from the pet store. Why it is needed: Passing the pet store ordinance is a preventative measure that will: • protect animals from neglect and cruelty — in pet stores and in mass breeding facilities where dogs and cats are acquired; • protect consumers from economic and emotional harm when a sickly animal is purchased or when they unknowingly support a cruel industry; • encourage the public to adopt homeless animals or seek out reputable breeders who take excellent care of their dogs and cats; • lessen the burden on law enforcement and other authorities who must repeatedly respond to cruelty complaints and noncompliant conditions; and • uphold the values of Roseville residents and promote Roseville as a humane community. Attachment B BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Multiple cities throughout the nation have recognized the need to address the problem of selling dogs and cats through pet stores that have been obtained from puppy and kitten mills. Pet shop ordinances have been passed in over 180 localities across the U.S., including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston. Puppy and kitten mills: Puppy and kitten mills are inhumane commercial breeding facilities that disregard the health and well-being of the animals to maintain a low overhead and increase profits. The focus of such facilities is the mass production of animals for re-sale to pet stores. Pet stores buy from both licensed and unlicensed pet breeders and brokers. Federal licensing does not ensure healthy and safe conditions for the animals. USDA requirements are known as “survival standards,” allowing dogs to be kept in cramped, stacked, wire cages for their entire lives, often in extreme temperatures, denied basic veterinary care, and bred continuously. Mass breeding-pet store link: There is a well-documented and indisputable link between puppy and kitten mills (mass breeding facilities) and pet stores. Puppy and kitten mills thrive on pet store sales because pet stores, as the distribution outlet, allow cruelty to remain hidden from the public. Investigations consistently reveal that pet stores mislead consumers by claiming they obtain puppies from small-scale humane breeders. In reality that option does not exist, because responsible breeders do not sell to pet stores. A review of the Codes of Ethics for the National Breed Clubs representing all 178 dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club found that 96% of those National Clubs include statements that their breeders should not and/or do not sell to pet stores. Sick and behaviorally challenged puppies: Not only are pet store consumers unknowingly supporting puppy and kitten mills, they often end up dealing with the financial and emotional burden of having a sick or difficult pet. Pet store puppies are often sick because they are born into deplorable conditions, taken from their mothers very early, exposed to a wide range of diseases, and are susceptible to genetic disorders. In addition, a study from the Journal of Veterinary Medicine concluded that puppies should not be obtained from pet stores because dogs are more likely to exhibit many undesirable behavioral characteristics, including aggression and biting. Humane model: An alternative humane model has been adopted by numerous pet stores in Minnesota and throughout the nation, where, instead of acquiring and selling dogs and cats obtained from puppy and kitten mills, the pet store hosts adoption events by working with local animal rescues and shelters. These events help decrease pet overpopulation and homelessness, and encourage those who adopt to use the products and services offered at the store. Pet stores that convert to such a model have proven success as well as a better reputation in the community. For instance, PetSmart and Petco both host dog and cat adoption events at their store and they are the two most successful pet store chains in the country. There is a great community of shelters, rescues, and truly responsible breeders in the Twin Cities, providing numerous options for a consumer to obtain the dog or cat of his or her choice. Attachment B CITY OF ROSEVILLE COUNTY OF RAMSEY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CITY CODE The City of Roseville ordains: SECTION 1. Background: WHEREAS, a significant number of puppies and kittens sold at pet stores come from large-scale, commercial breeding facilities where the health and welfare of the animals are not adequately provided for; and WHEREAS, the documented abuses endemic to mass breeding facilities include over-breeding; inbreeding; minimal to non-existent veterinary care; lack of adequate and nutritious food, water and shelter; lack of socialization; lack of adequate space; lack of adequate exercise; no or limited screening of genetic diseases; inadequate transportation and shipping protocols of puppies and kittens; and indiscriminate disposal of breeding dogs and cats who have reached the end of their profitable breeding cycle; and WHEREAS, the inhumane conditions in mass breeding facilities lead to health and behavioral issues in the animals bred in those facilities, which many consumers are unaware of when purchasing animals from pet stores due to both a lack of education on the issue and misleading tactics of pet stores in some cases. These health and behavioral issues, which may not present themselves until some time after the purchase of the animals, can impose exorbitant financial and emotional costs on consumers; and WHEREAS, current Federal and State regulations do not properly address the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores; and WHEREAS, due in large part to pet overpopulation, numerous dogs and cats are euthanized. Restricting the retail sale of puppies and kittens is likely to increase demand from animal shelters and rescue organizations, which will likely reduce the burden on such agencies and reduce financial costs on local taxpayers; and WHEREAS, across the country, thousands of independent pet stores as well as large chains operate profitably with a business model focused on the sale of pet services and supplies and not on the sale of commercially bred dogs or cats. Many of these stores collaborate with local animal shelters and rescue organizations to offer space and support for showcasing adoptable homeless pets on their premises; and Attachment B WHEREAS, this Ordinance will not affect consumers’ ability to obtain a dog or cat of their choice directly from an animal shelter, or breed-specific rescue organization, or from a breeder where the consumer can see directly the conditions in which the dogs or cats are bred or can confer directly with the breeder concerning those conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Roseville believes it is in the best interests of the City of Roseville to adopt reasonable regulations to reduce costs to the City and its residents, protect the citizens of the City who may purchase dogs or cats from a pet store or other business establishment, help prevent inhumane breeding conditions, promote community awareness of animal welfare, and foster a more humane environment in the City. SECTION 2. Section 501.01 (Definitions) is hereby amended as follows: 501.01: DEFINITIONS: Except where the term is expressly defined by other provisions or sections within this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY: Any governmental entity which is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction. ANIMAL RESCUE ORGANIZATION: Any not-for-profit organization which has tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or in significant part, the rescue of animals and the placement of those animals in permanent homes, and which does not obtain animals from a breeder or broker for payment or compensation, and does not breed animals. ANIMAL SHELTER: Any not-for-profit organization which has tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which (1) accepts animals into a physical facility; (2) is devoted to the rescue, care, and adoption of stray, abandoned, unwanted or surrendered animals; (3) places animals in permanent homes or with animal rescue organizations; and (4) does not breed animals. CAT: A mammal that is wholly or in part of the species Felis domesticus. CERTIFICATE OF SOURCE: A document from an animal control authority, animal rescue organization, or animal shelter which shall provide a brief description of the dog or cat, and shall list the name, address, and telephone number of the source (animal control authority, animal rescue organization, or animal shelter) of the dog or cat. DOG: A mammal that is wholly or in part of the species Canis familiaris. Attachment B PET STORE: Any retail establishment, or operator thereof, which displays, sells, delivers, offers for sale, barters, auctions, gives away, or otherwise transfers companion animals in the City of Roseville. This definition does not apply to animal control authorities, animal shelters, or animal rescue organizations. PET STORE OPERATOR: A person or business entity who owns or operates a pet store. SECTION 3. Section 510.25 is renumbered as section 501.26, and section 501.25 is hereby amended as follows: 501.25 PET STORES A. No pet store shall sell, deliver, offer for sale, barter, auction, give away, or otherwise transfer or dispose of cats or dogs. B. Nothing in this section shall prohibit pet stores from collaborating with animal shelters, animal rescue organizations, and animal control authorities to offer space for such entities to showcase adoptable dogs and cats inside pet stores. Such animals shall not be younger than 8 weeks old. C. A pet store shall post and maintain a Certificate of Source in a conspicuous place on or within three feet of each dog’s or cat’s kennel, cage, or enclosure. 1. A Certificate of Source shall be provided to the purchaser or transferee of any dog or cat. 2. Certificate of Source records for each dog or cat shall be maintained by a pet store for at least one year from the last date that a dog or cat appeared in the store. 3. Pet stores shall make Certificates of Source immediately available for review upon the request of a peace officer or animal control authority, or a humane agent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 343.06. 4. Falsification of a Certificate of Source shall be deemed a violation of this section. D. A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished pursuant to Minn. Stat. 609.02, subd. 3, or as subsequently amended, plus costs of prosecution. Each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 4. Effective Date: This amendment to the Roseville City Code shall take effect 90 days after passage and publication. Attachment C November 28, 2016 Roseville City Council Members City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 To members of the Roseville City Council, Thank you for your interest in examining the issue of pet stores and animal welfare in Roseville. Like many community members, our organizations and our members have long-standing concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to share our recommendations for an ordinance that addresses the systemic nature of the problem, and that also benefits business, protects animals, and is minimally burdensome for the city. You are likely aware of an April 21, 2016, inspection report conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture of the Har Mar Pet Shop that revealed various animals inside the pet store suffering from a variety of distressing conditions as a result of inadequate care. For years, complaints have been filed by citizens against the Har Mar Pet Shop in regard to conditions for animals, and law enforcement and humane agents have made repeated visits to the store. Additionally, The Har Mar Pet Shop has purchased puppies from various dog breeders and brokers that have been cited for violations of the Animal Welfare Act including lack of veterinary care, lack of cleaning, sanitization, pest control, housekeeping, and broken, hazardous enclosures. In light of this, we are supporting a pet store ordinance drafted specifically for the City of Roseville that prohibits pet stores from selling dogs and cats acquired from commercial breeding facilities while allowing the stores to host adoption events with animal shelters and rescues. Similar pet shop ordinances have been passed in 205 localities across the U.S., including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston, and we encourage you to adopt this ordinance. This ordinance provides pet stores with the opportunity to transition to a humane business model consistent with Roseville community values. The model does not impose a costly burden to the city and is business-friendly, allowing pet stores to sell quality products and services and host pet adoption events at their store in conjunction with area shelters and rescues. These adoption events not only help decrease pet overpopulation and homelessness, they also encourage those who adopt to purchase the products and services they need from the pet store. We hope you will consider passage of this ordinance in Roseville, and are available to answer questions and gather any more information that might be helpful. Please consider us a resource. Attachment C Thank you for your time and we look forward to being in touch. Sincerely, Christine Coughlin, MN state director, The Humane Society of the United States ccoughlin@humanesociety.org; 612-219-4805 Kathy Mock, Chief Government Affairs and Community Engagement Officer, Animal Humane Society kmock@animalhumanesociety.org; 763-489-1585 Ann Olson, Executive Director, Animal Folks Minnesota-Legislative Action ann@animalfolks.org; 651-222-2821 Animal Folks Minnesota (AFMN) is an animal protection organization, focused on the prevention of cruelty and protection of animals through legislative action, education and advocacy. Working with citizens, authorities and elected officials, the purpose of our actions is to increase awareness of animal issues and promote state and local laws that lay a legal foundation for the humane treatment of animals. Our efforts support the values of communities throughout Minnesota. www.animalfolksmn.org Animal Humane Society Every year Animal Humane Society (AHS) cares for more than 23,000 companion animals in need and helps thousands more through programs for people and pets. As the leading animal welfare organization in the Upper Midwest, AHS is transforming the way shelters care for animals and engage their communities. From innovative medical and behavior programs to investments in outreach and advocacy, we’re advancing animal welfare and creating a more humane world for animals everywhere. www.animalhumanesociety.org The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization, rated most effective by its peers. For 60 years, HSUS has celebrated the protection of all animals and confronted all forms of cruelty. HSUS is the nation’s largest provider of hand-on services for animals, caring for more than 100,000 animals each year, and preventing cruelty to millions more through advocacy campaigns. www.humanesociety.org REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:September 19, 2016 Item No.: 15.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Pet Store Regulation and Licensing Discussion Page 1 of 2 BACKGROUND 1 Due to recent newspaper article regarding the condition of animals being sold at the Har Mar Pet Store 2 (Attachment A), there has been interest in looking at ways the City can better regulate the sale of 3 animals. There are currently four pet stores located in Roseville, PetSmart, PETCO, Chuck and Don’s, 4 and Har Mar Pet Store. The City does not currently regulate or license pet stores. 5 While federal regulations do regulate breeders, it specifically exempts brick and mortar retail pet stores 6 from regulation. The State of Minnesota does not require the licensing of pet stores. There are a couple 7 of existing laws that do impact the operation of pet stores in Minnesota. One is consumer protection 8 laws covering the purchases of animals in pet stores and the process of returning them for a refund. 9 Another one is animal cruelty laws that apply to everyone, including pet stores. 10 Based on the newspaper article regarding the Har Mar Pet Store, a representative of Minnesota Chapter 11 of the Humane Society of America (HAS) met with the City Manager to provide information about the 12 operation of pet stores and shared their thought on a possible pet store ordinance for Roseville, 13 including an ordinance adopted by Eastpointe, Michigan. (Attachment B). The basic premise of HSA’s 14 ordinance is to prohibit the sale of animals unless the animals is sold on the property where the animal 15 was bred and reared, or from a public or private animal shelter. Under the proposed ordinance, pet 16 store may sell animals that come from an animal shelter or humane society. The Eastpointe ordinance 17 allowed for the existing pet stores to continue the sale of animals for a short time before they had to 18 comply with the new ordinance. A representative of the Humane Society of America will be in 19 attendance at the meeting to share additional information and answer questions that the City Council 20 may have. 21 The City of St. Paul does require pet shop licenses. A pet shop is defined as a business kept or 22 maintained for the care, exhibition for sale, sale, or purchase of live dogs, cats, rabbits, other small 23 animals, any birds, reptiles, or fish. It does not include veterinary hospitals, or persons or places selling 24 only frogs, fish, worms, or reptiles for use as live bait for fishing. This license includes pet grooming. 25 St. Paul’s pet shop license must be reviewed annually and requires inspections from the Fire 26 Attachment D Page 2 of 2 Department, Environmental Health, and Zoning. The annual license fee is $183.00. Included as 27 Attachment C is St. Paul’s Pet Shop License ordinance. 28 POLICY OBJECTIVE 29 To determine whether pet stores should be regulated and/or licensed in the City of Roseville. 30 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 31 Cannot be determined at this time. City costs will depend on the action taken. 32 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 33 Staff suggests that the City Council reviews the information and discusses next steps that the City 34 should take regarding the regulation and licensing of pet stores 35 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 36 Provide direction on the regulation and licensing of pet stores in Roseville. 37 38 Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager (651) 792-7021 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com Attachments: A: City Pages Article dated June 7, 2016 B: Information from the Humane Society of America regarding pet stores C: City of St. Paul’s Pet Shop Ordinance Attachment D Attachment AAttachment D Attachment AAttachment D Attachment AAttachment D Atachment BAttachment D Atachment BAttachment D Atachment BAttachment D Atachment BAttachment D Atachment BAttachment D Chapter 347. - Pet Shops/Animal Facility Footnotes: --- (19) --- Cross reference— For various provisions pertaining to animals, see Title XX of this Code. Sec. 347.01. - License required. No person shall keep or maintain a pet shop in Saint Paul without a license. (Code 1956, § 325.02; C.F. No. 94-410, § 1, 4-27-94; C.F. No. 98-1118, § 1, 1-13-99) Sec. 347.02. - Definitions. Pet shop means and includes every place kept or maintained for the care, exhibition for sale, sale or purchase of live dogs, cats, rabbits or other small animals, or any birds, reptiles or fish, but shall not include veterinary hospitals or persons or places selling only frogs, fish, worms or reptiles for use as live bait for fishing. Pet shop licensees shall be exempt from obtaining a dog and cat grooming license pursuant to Chapter 382 of the Legislative Code. In addition, such dog and cat grooming facilities shall be exempt from obtaining a pet shop license. Pet shop facility means any facility engaged in the operation of pet shops. Animal facility includes every place which is engaged in the operation of a pet shop but not a retail pet shop or veterinary hospital. (Code 1956, §§ 325.01, 325.08; C.F. No. 94-410, § 2, 4-27-94; C.F. No. 98-1118, § 1, 1-13-99; C.F. No. 99-230, § 1, 4-14-99) Sec. 347.03. - Fee. The fee required for each license shall be established by ordinance as specified in section 310.09(b) of the Legislative Code. (Code 1956, § 325.04; C.F. No. 94-410, § 3, 4-27-94; C.F. No. 98-1118, § 1, 1-13-99) Sec. 347.04. - Application. [19] Page 1 of 3St. Paul, MN Code of Ordinances about:blank Attachment CAttachment D (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Application.Every applicant for a pet shop license shall file an application with the department of safety and inspections. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the department of safety and inspections containing such information as the director of such department may require including, but not limited to, the applicant's name, address and telephone number and the name, address and telephone number of the pet shop. Each pet shop facility shall be separately licensed. An applicant may also elect to apply for permission to act as a deputy dog license vendor as part of its license and as such is entitled to retain one hundred (100) percent of the license fee for each animal initially licensed. (Code 1956, § 325.05; C.F. No. 94-410, § 4, 4-27-94; C.F. No. 98-1118, § 1, 1-13-99; C.F. No. 07-149, § 94, 3-28-07) Sec. 347.05. - Regulations. Premises.Every person keeping or maintaining a pet shop shall do so entirely within a closed building, shall not keep or maintain any outside kennel service, and shall be subject to and shall comply with all of the rules and regulations of the department of safety and inspections. Exotic animals.No pet shop shall maintain, keep or harbor any skunk, whether captured in the wild or raised domestically, descented or not descented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies. No pet shop shall maintain, keep, harbor or sell any red-eared turtle (Pseudemys scriptaelegans) with a shell length of less than four (4) inches. Permit required.Every licensee shall affix in a prominent position to the exterior of the cage, pen, enclosure, or tank housing of any animal requiring a permit to keep within the city, a tag or notice with the words "Saint Paul permit required." Rules and regulations.The director of the department of safety and inspections may upon notice and hearing promulgate such rules as he or she deems necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this chapter, to provide for the proper care of animals and to provide for the cleanliness and proper sanitation in such facilities. Notice of the promulgation of such rules and the hearing date shall be given to all licensees, and notice of the hearing date published once in the legal newspaper. The notice shall advise that at the hearing written or oral comments on proposed rules will be received, and how a copy of the proposed rules can be obtained. Such rules shall be effective after such hearing when filed in the office of the city clerk. Violations of such rules shall be sufficient grounds for adverse action against licenses issued under this chapter. Page 2 of 3St. Paul, MN Code of Ordinances about:blank Attachment CAttachment D (f) (g) Records.Every licensee shall keep a book in which shall clearly be entered, in ink, at the time of each purchase or sale, an accurate account in the English language of any such live animal so purchased or sold, including the name and address of the person by or to whom such purchase or sale is made. Reporting.Every licensee shall inform the person by or to whom such purchase or sale is made for any animal requiring a permit in order to keep it within the city of the guidelines for obtaining a keeping-of-animal permit. Inspection.The record herein required to be kept, as well as the premises of each licensee, shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection and examination by the license and health inspectors of the City of Saint Paul. (Code 1956, §§ 325.01, 325.03, 325.06—325.08; Ord. No. 17215, 2-19-85; C.F. No. 94-410, § 5, 4-27- 94; C.F. No. 97-288, § 1, 4-16-97; C.F. No. 98-1118, § 1, 1-13-99; C.F. No. 99-230, § 1, 4-14-99; C.F. No. 07-149, § 95, 3-28-07) Page 3 of 3St. Paul, MN Code of Ordinances about:blank Attachment CAttachment D REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:December 5, 2016 Item No.: 15.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: City Facility Needs Discussion Page 1 of 2 BACKGROUND 1 As a result of a discussion about long-term facility options for the Roseville License Center at the 2 November 14th City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to bring back additional 3 information about other city facility needs. As mentioned at the November meeting the land area and 4 building size of the maintenance facility is smaller than is needed thus leading to inefficient operations 5 and the need to have off-site storage for equipment and materials from the Public Works and Parks and 6 Recreation Departments. 7 8 Specifically, the License Center needs about 6,000 square feet and staff recommends adding another 9 6,000 square feet for city office needs. The maintenance facility currently has approximately 57,000 10 square feet of building space located on approximately three and a half acres. Ideally, for the City’s 11 operations we would have 93,000 sq. ft. on about 6 acres. To deal with the lack of space, we currently 12 use about 3,300 square feet at the Fairview Fire Station for storage and the City leases an additional 13 5,000 square feet for storage in the western part of Roseville. 14 15 As has been previously identified, it is advantageous for the License Center and other office space to be 16 located near the City Hall Campus. As part of this analysis, staff has looked at properties nearby the 17 campus and have estimated costs for acquisition and development of those sites. Appraisals have been 18 ordered for two properties, but they will not be completed for a couple of more weeks. Therefore, the 19 costs listed for acquisition are based off the current assessed value plus a premium factored in given the 20 nature of the acquisition. Staff has also looked at the possibility of repurposing the existing 21 maintenance facility for the license center. 22 23 Below is an analysis of the different options regarding the relocations of the Roseville License Center 24 for consideration and discussion. Both Options A and B take a similar approach of purchasing a 25 property (known as property #1 and property #2, respectively), tearing down the existing building, and 26 developing the site with a new building to house the License Center and other city office uses. Option 27 C would repurpose the existing Maintenance Facility for the License Center and other City office needs 28 and relocate the Maintenance Facility to a different site in Roseville. With this option, the City would 29 be able to consolidate the existing off-site storage into the new Maintenance Facility. Option D would 30 utilize land in Veterans Park for new License Center Facility. Under Options A, B, and D, the City 31 would still need to have off-site storage given the inadequacy of the existing Maintenance Facility. 32 Page 2 of 2 Assuming the City Council would still want to consolidate the off-site storage into one facility, we have 33 estimated the costs for this structure for Options 1, 2, and 4. 34 35 In the analysis, staff presents some potential funding methods for the different options. These funding 36 methods include using existing cash balances and a License Center revenue bond. However, in each 37 option there still is a large gap that would need to be covered by additional bonding or other funds and 38 fees. At this time, staff has not factored in the sale of the Fairview Fire Station as it is unknown how 39 much the City would be able to get for it, but that projected revenue can be factored in at a later date. 40 41 Option A Option B Option C Option D Maintenance Veteran's Estimated Project Costs Parcel #1 Parcel #2 Facility Park License Center: Site Acquisition 1,835,400$ 920,460$ -$ -$ License Center: Construction/Renovation/Other 2,778,700 2,578,100 1,412,600 2,453,200 Maintenance Facility: Acquisition/Construction - - 13,000,000 - Seasonal Storage: Acquisition/Construction 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 Total 7,114,100$ 5,998,560$ 14,412,600$ 4,953,200$ Potential Funding Sources Cash: License Center Fund 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ Cash: Information Technology Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Bond: License Center Revenue 1,223,200 1,223,200 162,600 1,223,200 TBD 4,640,900 3,525,360 13,000,000 2,480,000 Total 7,114,100$ 5,998,560$ 14,412,600$ 4,953,200$ 42 43 In regards to extending the lease for the License Center at its current location, staff is in discussion with 44 the property owner for a short-term lease and expect to bring the proposed lease to the City Council in 45 the beginning of 2017. 46 POLICY OBJECTIVE 47 To determine City building facility needs 48 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 49 Costs for each of the options are listed in the chart above. 50 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 51 Staff suggests that the City Council review the information and discusses next steps that the City should 52 take regarding the license center and other facility needs. 53 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION 54 Provide direction on next steps that the City should take regarding the license center and other facility 55 needs. 56 57 Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager (651) 792-7021 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com Attachments: None 1 z 3 4 5 E � E 9 1G 11 12 13 '�r,r,� h t-� a�r+�o�-�' A'r�"dQ � �Z �. �t..C�v+.��✓" �i 1 el+-° € k: tJ� � � 12EQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/05/2016 Item No.: Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Public Hearing to Consider Approving the 2017 Liquor License Renewals BACKGROUND Under City Code, a public hearing is required to consider approving liquor license renewals for the follow�ng calendar year. Tlie City has received the follotiving completed renewal applications for 2017: •:• 1 On Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses •:• 1 Wine only liquor licenses On-Sale 3.2 Non-IntoYicatin� India Palace tiVine India Palace 14 POLICY OBJECTIV� ' � 5 The regulation of establishments that sell alcoholic beverages has been a long-standing practice by the State � s and the City. 17 FL�iA1VCIAL I1�IPACTS � a The revenue that is generated from the license fees is used to offset the cost of police compliance checks, �� background investigations, enforcement of liquor laws, and license administration. 2o STAFF IZEC0IVIlYIEND�,TIO�T z � All liquor license renewal applications have met Stahrtory and City Code requirements. Staffrecommends 22 approval pending background checks. 23 REQUESTED COLTICIL ACTION Za Motion to approve/deny the renewal of the requested liquor licenses for 2017. 25 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director Attachments: 26 Page 1 of 1 � �,� � �� ,. � � �� >� �� Minnesota Departinent of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 222 St Paul, MN 55I O1 651-201-7�00 R�NEWAL OF LIQUOR , VVINE, CLUB 012 3.2°/a LICENSES No license wi[I'be approye or reteased until the $?Q Retaifer ID Card fee is reeeived by Alcohot atid Gambiir�g Enfarcement Licensee: Please verify your license information contained below. Make corrections if necessary and sign. City Clerk/County Auditor should submit this si�ned renewal with completed Iicense and licensee liquor liability for the new license period. City Clerk/County Auditor are also required by M.S. 340A.404 S.3 to report any license cancellation. License Code MWNONSB License Periocl Ending ISSIJING AUTHORITY Roseville Licensee Name India Palace Inc. Tracle Name India Palace City, State, Zip Code 2570 Cleveland Ave N Business Pho�e License Fees: Off Sale Rosevi lle 6516311222 �0.00 On Sale 12/31/2016 ID# ?95 NN 55113 $1,500.00 Sunday $0.00 By signine this rene�val application, applicant certifies that there has been no change in ownership on the above n�med licensee. For changes in ownership, the licensee named above, or for ne�v licensees, full applications should be used. S� back of this application for further information needed to complete this rene��al. Applicant's siQnature on this renewal confirms the followina: Failure to report anv of the fo(lowina mav result in civil nenalties. 1. Licensee confirms it has no interest �vhatsoever, directly or indirectly in any other lic�uor establishments in Minnesota. Ifso, give details on back of this application. 2. Licensee confirms that it has never had a liquor license rejected by any city%to�rmship/county in tl;e state of i�linnesota. Ifever rej:cted, pleas� eive details on the back oFthis renewal, then si�n below. 3. Licensee confirms that for the pas; five years it has not had a liqtior license r�voked for any tiqtiior la��v violation (state or local). If a revocation has occ�ured, p(ease give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below. a. Licensee confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or crim inal liquor Iaw violations. If violations have occtirred, please give details on back of this renewal, then si� belo�v. �. Licensee confirms that during the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liability Law (Dram Shopj MS 3�30A.802. If yes, attach a copy of the summons, then si� below. 6. Licensee confirms that Workeis Compensation insurance will be kept in effect during the license periai. Licensee has attached a 6quor liability insurance certificate that corresponds with the license perioci in city/county where license is issued. �100,000 in cash or securities or �iQQ000 surety bond may be submitted in lieu of liquor liability. (3.2& liquor licenses are exempt if sales are less than �2�,000 at on sate, or ��0,000 at offsale). Licensee Signatiire ��— DOB�� '�� SS# � � 3 � �� `� �� Date � �� (Signature certi6es all above information to be correct and license has been approved by city!county.) City Clerk,/County Auditor Signature � Date (Signahire certifies that rene�val of a liquor, wine or club license has been approved by the cityicounty as stated above.) County Attorney Signature County Board issued lieenses only(-Signature certifies licensee is eligible forlicense). Date Police/5heriffSio ature Date Sierahire certi:ies licensee or asseciat�s have beer checked for an� itate!local liqu-�r law � iolatior.s (criminaVci� il) durin� the past tive; ears. Report vioiatii�ns on back, then sign nere. t: � `� Alcuhul & Camhling Enforcement Minnesota Depai-tment of Public Safety Alcohol �ncl Gambling Enforcement 44� Minnesota Street, Suite 2?2 St. Paul, N1N 55101 651-201-7�00 RENEWAL OF LIQUOR , WINE, CLUB OR 3.2% LICENS�S No Iicense �ui1l be appro�;e or reieased �inti� the $20 Ret�iler IL) Caid fee isrec:�iced by Alcohol and Gambling Enforceiiierit Licensee: P(ease verify yo��r license information contained belo�v. Make corrections if necessary and sign. City Clerk/County Auditor should s�ibmit this signed renewal with completed license and ficensee liquor liability for the new license period. City Clerk/County Auditor are also required by M.S. 340A.404 S.3 to report any license cancellation. License Code 3.20NSS License Period Ending 12/31/2016 ID# 13750 ISSIIING AUTHORITI' Roseville Licensee Name India Palace Inc. Trade Name India Palace � City, State, Zip Code 2570 Cleveland Roseville � M�1 5�113 Business Phone License Fees: Oi'f Sale 6516311222 $0.00 On Sale $100.00 Sunday $0.00 B} siguinb this rene`val application, applicant certifies that there has been no chanae in ownersliip on the above named licensee. For changes in ownership, the licensee named above, or for new licensees, full applications should be used. S� back of this application for further information needed to complete this renewal. Annlicant's siQnature on this renewal co�firms the followina� Failure to report anv of the followin6 mav resutt in civil penalties. I. Liceusee confirms it has no interest �vhatscever, directly or indirectly in any other liquor establishments in Minnesota. lfso, give details on back ofthis application. ?. Licensee confirms that it has never had a liquoc licerse r�jected by any ciry/to�vnship� county ii1 tl�e state of Minnesota. Ifev:r rejected, please give details on the back oFthis renzwal, then si�n belo�v. 3. Licensee confirms that for the past five years it has not had a liquor liee��se revoked for any liquor la�v violation (�tate or loc�7). If a re��ocation h� occurred, please �ive detaIls on the back of this rene�val, then sign belo��v. 4. Licensee confirms that durin� the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or criminal liquor law violariorts. If violations have occurred, please �ive details on back of this renewal, then si� belorv. �. Licensee confirms that during the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liabitity Larv (Dram Shop) MS 340A.802. Ifyes, attach a copy ofthe s�unmons, then sign below. 6. Licensee confirms that �Vorkers Compensation insurance will be kept in effect during the license period. Licensee has attached a liquor liability insurance certificate that corresponds �vith the license period in city/county where (icense is issued. �100,000 in cash or securities or �I00,000 surety bond may be submitted in lieu of lic�uor liability. (3:L& (iquor licenses a xem if sales are less than �2�,000 at on sale, or $�0,000 at off sale). �7 c t ? �- . Licensee Signature � _ DOB��' P7 SS� ��3' i u��l � Date �� (Signature certifies all above information to be correct and license has been approved by city/county.) City Clerk/County Auditor Signature Date (Siffnattu�e certifies that renewaf of a liquor, wine or dub license has been approved by the cit;�!count}� as stated above.) County Attorney Signature County Board issued licenses only(Signature certifies Iicensee is eli�ible for license). te Pol i ce/Sheriff S ignature Date Signature certitias lic�nsee or associa;es have been checked for an� stzt��local liquor la�v violations (criminai.-'civil) during the past five vear�. Report vio'tationson oaci:, tnen sign nere. No. 79� Fee S 7�0 THIS CERTIFIES THAT: LICENSEE India Palace Inc. � �� t� . � #��,� � �i.,� ��:�, - <�w.e�a «�.on�: �aw.', �� VIltirE LICENSE - "Ol�r-SALE" City ROSEVILLT County R-��ISFY TR?.DE N.�1E India Pa(ace STREET ADDRESS OR LOT AND BLOCK NO 2570 Cleveland A��e ` I� authorized For the Period beeiruun� 1/i/2017 to 12/31/2017 to sell ��'INE NOT L' XCEEDIYC 1�1% ALCOHOL BY" t'OLU�tE A7' RET:�IL OVLY' F'OR CONSti.ltPT[OY O� TEiE PRE�[ISES SUB.IECT TO �I'HE LA��'S :�YD REGGLATfO\S OF THE ST�1TE OF �[I�YESOTA:��D THE ORDIV.>YCES OF THE ,�IL`N(C(P:�LITt' OR COU�T **STRO\G BEER AL`TIIORIZATIO�** YES ❑x NO ❑ CLERIi/AL'DITOR SIG�ATtiRE THIS LICENSE IS APPROVED Alcohol c& Gamblin� Enforcement Director Date PS 9115-03(6%03} � � Mayor or President Given und�r my hand and the Vlunicipal Corporate Seal City�Countyof ROS��'II�LE___ Date_12/5/2016 CLERK or Recorder � �� 0 � M O z �� o �s � � J � N `� 'U c�^�' N� v �, �, 0 o � �� b � � U C3 � O � �. +; y � b0 w •,=, r � � y ' a� � � � ; � � � �" � � U c �' c �., o �' � � �� 4... � p r U � -V � � v G � � � � � >, � � � � o O '� w � w � �� z .� o y F � U " � � �. a, �' � � � O � E-� c H � � U Q � N � � '^. � r � � � U a� �s a � �, a� c� � � a � 'a � m 0 V i � U tC �a a ca � �� ;�C7Ca � �� o �F'� U �' � � � � � � � � � O �'� � °'x �z�� a�.��,.�� ,�Q �,�.��-!� � � Q �V � � � �, � � � ° d � � �'' 3 � W U U �"^ � Q >CU�°'�¢ O o � � � � U �� 3 � ��, 7� � G N � r �a,' � � Z � ��a� O�� a�W Z �� Y�x� � � � � � � � O r/; � � �,, � p � � � o ° .� O� =~ W � � � -, � � � � �'� p o�•� ��-, �� s y-�� ,� � � � , ,� `Y' J O �w � ��h--� � y y � � ✓ ..�� 'r.. � N C -�J v: , C � �z�, 3 F-•C q�w.^., �z�' Co O � r'�' � :v0�" °��',�z,,¢� O �� ZO �� •�O� �� zx z� �� N�a�:��° T�� OpU w� � ��=� ��z E-� � a� E� ,��'Z � �QH � � Q �p� �vqU � o z � .�� b� �� U � � � O '� � � �'� � � R,�C, �'^'� U ,__, � =� x , ,y � � O � �'' � �, 3 '� a� � �,� ,,,�0� �� :� �H� i� ��-�'/ �A -. --_ , �� ; t�� C-.�.� �� z.�i�-t��/`-� � _ �t,,�.��e_. � t�'�� iv��- H�vtG�v ; ��0� 0.�p� �':� •ex.. t�_c.a-�m.�l-.� Se i� r (� . . __. _ _ _ _ t - �� - _ _ �� . _ _ r __ �� _ _ ___ __ __ . _ _ _ - ___ __ — ., - -- _ _ __ _ � > - , _- , �c.�� - , �L�� ,�- ., .. �,-�. _ � _ r _ _ _ _ _---- � --_ � ----- - -- - ---- -- -_ __ --___----- _ _ _ _ _ -- -___ __ __ _ _ �� _ --- �- ------ ----- _ _ -- -- _ _ _ _--- .�� .�� _- � --- -- - - -- _ _ ,�2� � ,�Z�� z`.`�; - _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ _-- -_ _ � ___�� -�-��- �-� _ ____ _ ________._ ._ __ __� :�_�� . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , � ___ _____ ._. ___ , ___ __ c'�' ��1- `� � L� ��; �-, L�_ �.� �G: _ --- -- _ � __ _ __ _ -- __ ---_ --� _ _ - ----- _ __ _. _ . _.�-Gc�-�y.-�y��c �_ Y�__��.c� �--__ ` -��--- �.- -� _- __-�L. __— - �-��-� - �� _ �� -- ------ �- - � - _ __ _ _ - �%1`l��l � __ - - - � -__ _ _ �''u� -,�-�-�� . �1�L?G--12 �GL�-u,ti /J� � /� ��- ' -- - ----- - - -� - - f� _� i� ��=�t C _,� ��z-c�� P..�''-�� , _; -- _ --- _ _ _ '�� _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ -- - -- _ - , �., . , , �� , `%�� : - ; — --- �- �� - � -- - -1 _----_- � - --__ _ _ -��`"`-� -- _ -- - __ i -------- i _ ^—. ,� __ .` _ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ -- - -- - � , _ __ �� ./�C Z�. _%`L ,c� �{,� �Lk�.�. /��Z�'c-�c,e- ��/cc�c.. CG�.� _--_-- - — - � — . __ _ -- --� _ - — -- i - -- �-- ` . �:_ — - _ -- , T— __ _ _ _ __ _ _ a... � , �_ � � , � lL.�� ; 1� ��4.,-. / ��' _ �' �, %�lf/ � j� , , � ; ; —, ` ; � �� ---- - r- �(/� ____ ___ ___ - --- _ _ ___. _. --� ...____�..______ _ . �__ ._. ..._ .__zs__. _ _ ___.__�___.._____�___� _._.___�____, � �TF C� _�� .T � �J I'�T S �� rT _ _, .,� . ,8 � , _ . , , .•t. � �; ' _.._ _ ____ .� .__ . _.__._. _.�_�._. _ __._ .�._�_ �_ ; a�cil�iii � '.nce�ara�� a n�.__..._.-_.��______._�._�..._. �,,,,_, .� j t c�. � It is amazing that something as beautiful and grace As we have taken over more of the land they once reign tors, deer have proven just how adaptable they are. Unf� owners, our prized landscape plants have become dinne had to prove how adaptable they wer�, home owners ha become detectives to determine what method of deer co our yards. While we can spend a lot of time trying to ke away from our plantings, we have to accept that the deer are not going to choose to starve to death just ��.:,aux �ui y�uus arc noisy or we nave sprayeti our yards with repellents. Sometimes the best we will be able to do is encourage them to look elsewhere. There are various products and methods available to us, but they key is to find a way that not only works, but doesn't cost a fortune or detract from the �eauty of the la��dscaping. There are various types of repellenis and barriers, but repellents seern to be the best suited to the hom;, lands.cape. Fencing is the most effective, but it doesn't always fit in with the asthetics of our landscapes or our budget�s. Given the tremendous n�amber of deer in urban areas, there has been a loi of research done on repellents. They all repel by tasting horrible, smelling offensive or boih. After all the rese�rch, the only general conclusion seems to be that all of tnem work some of th� time, but none of them v✓orics �i of the time. Be1ow yo� ��ill iinti a lict of some of the products you can use as repellents an� a fevy detaiis abo�� each. Ask around and s�,e if your friends and neighbors have any ideas. Det.�rring d:xr can become a battle of the wits and you r.eed all the creative ideas you can muster�One gardenPr_has Qoo� luck with a light and radia __ _ j (tunLd to an aL-talk station) hooked to a sensor that tums thert� on when the deer walk into the yard at night. �. Substances Us�d as �3e�r Repel��nt Hinder Th� a�tive ingredient in this repellent is ammonium soaps. It repels b� smell and taste and rat�s consis- iently high in the studies. Needs to be reapplied regularly. �inder is labeled for use on any plant. D�er-Away Made of putrescent egg solids, De�r-Away repels by sznell and tas�v. It rates consistently high in effectiveness studies. I�Teeds to be reapplied regularly. It is label�;d fo: use o�� trees and shrubs. 'I�e Guard A local product with lots of promise, Tre� Guard is a lat�x-base spray that sticks to the plants for weeks (maybe manths}. It repels by taste. The active inaredient is a��rribie tasting chemical that won'i hurt the deer. It is currently labeled for u.se on trees and shrubs. ihey are workin� on having it relabeled to include annuals and perennials. It has received mixed ratings in r.�sts, but has gained an excellent reputation amongst hoine owners. Mil€�rgana#e This is an organic lawn a�d gard�n fei-tilizer rnad� fro� Iviil�vaukf:,e's waste-water treatment process. It repels by smell. Test results are mixed on this produ�t_ Some siuclies s�y it is the best, others are ltiss enthusiastic. As a deer rzpell�nt, the manufacturer recommends applyin; it lightly every 2 weeks and not working it into the s�ii or applying a 2-3 inch wi�ie b�n� a.n inch �� t��o d::�;�7 �oun� the plantin� area. i :': i : ; i: Annuals Ageratum Snapdragons Wax Begonia Cleome Dahlia Polkadot Plant Sweet Alyssum Heliotrope Calendula Lantana Marigolds Zinnias �Ierbena Dusty Mitler �l�n� 1��e� IJsually A-v-�z-r� L-� �- � �-�r�� Pe�ennials Pere�ials Hollyhock Hardy Geranium Cardin�l Flower Peony Phlax � Black-eyed Susan 1V�eadow Rue Hosca I�aylilies �arden Lilies Autumn Joy Sedum Ar�nuals Impatiens 1l�Iexican Sunflower Sj,�nflowers �u�bs Crocus Tulips Yarrow Monkshood Artemesia Baptisia �hrysanthemums Foxglove Columbine Lavender Mint Ferns Bee Balm Blanket Flower Cai Mint Poppies Sage Weronica Rudbeckia Astilbe Barronwort Bleeding Heart Lupine Clematis Butterfly Weed Globe Thistle Joe Pye Weed �ulbs Daffodils Lily of the Valley Leucojum Allium Groundcovers Ajuga Vinca Groundcover Pachysandra Snow on the Mountain Lamium � ,, . � `t � . . . � s 'iYees and Shrubs B arberry Boxwood Magnolia Smoke Tree Daphne Juniper Mahonia Rhododendron Sumac Hawthorn Nordic Holly Liliacs Buckthoi-n Potentilla Bridal Wreath Spirea 'I'i-ees and Shrubs Fir Redbud Ros�s Yews Birch Arborvitae Apples Crabapples Hydrangea Arrou�wood Viburnum Cranberry Viburnum Winged Euonymus Dogwood Linden Hemlack COPII�G �VI��-I DEERi 1��.�"" � GREENHOUSES 8� GARDEN CENTER PLANT SELECTION - When deer are hungry they will eat almost anything, however, preferring some plants over others and preferably ne�v yotmg �-owth. Generallv preferred foods Arborvitae Euonymus Yews Dogwood Hydrangea Apple Arrowood viburnum Linden/basswood Plantc �nmetimPs eaten Hemlock Spruce Juniper Maple White pine Forsvthia Wayfarin� tree American hi�hbush cranberry Douglas fir White fir Bush honevsuckle Generallv disliked foods Plants w�th thorns, such as Barbeny, Balsam fir Lilacs Anthony waterer spirea Honeysucl�le Other ever�reens, except as noted Impatiens Hosta Garden lilies Davlilies Hazelnut Sumac Roses Mountain ash Youn� fniit trees P.ussian Olive a�~�d Common buckthorn Nanny�erry vibumum Potentilla � A�ardener in upstate New York observed that deer avoided the followin�- flowenn� annual and perennials. Deer in other states mav have different preferences, however. �V�V UALS Ageratum Amaranthus Castor bean Cosmos Chinese forget-me-not Cupflower Dusty miller r: Globe amaranthus Mexican tulip Ornamental pepper Penwinkle Polygonum Salvia Signet mari�old Snapdragon Snow-on-the-mountain Spider flower Sweet alyssum Wax begonia Zinnia .,- � , =� � PERENNIALS O (�,��,� NI � � �� Achillea Flax Allium ' Foxglove Amsonia Gayfeather Baby's breath Globe thistle j ��1., Bleedingheart Golden marguerite Rose campion Butterfly flower Lamb's ears Sage Coralbells Lily-of-the-valley Speedwell Coreopsis Lupine Turtlehead Cranesbill Lungwort � Wormwood ��,�.� ��y �� h� S� �� y Expenment with different plants and keep records of which ones deer ignore. Keep in mind if food supplies are short, deer will browse plants they have previously ignored. BARRIEI�S - Fences can effectiveiy reduce deer damage. Wire rather than wood causes a psychological anci physicai bamer as cieer hesitate to jump over something in which they are afraid of becoming entangled. The fence should be six feet high placed at a 30-degree angle away from the garden. Vertically they wiil jump an eight foot fence, especially if made of wood. Electric fences work well if no small children are around. If the voltage charge is high the hum itself will deter the deer. REPELLENTS - There are two basic types of deer repellents, bad taste and foul odor. A Connecticut testing of six repellents lists effectiveness. Big Game Repellent, also knotivn as Deer Away, made from rotten whole egg solids was 46% effective. Hinder, made from ammonium soaps of higher fatty acids was �3% effective. Thiram, a bitter-tasting fungicide now commonly used in repellents was 43% effective. Mesh bags filled with dirty human hair was 34% effective. Magic Circle deer repellent, a bone tar oil soaked into 10-30 centimeter burlap pieces was 18% effective. Miller Hot Sauce, containing capsicum, an eYtract of hot peppers, �vas 1�% efFective. Some people have success with pieces of deodorant soap placed in a mesh bag, ??% effective. Two eggs and a cup or two of cold water blended, then added to one gallon of water sprayed on foliage has �vorked for some. There are no easy solutions for gardeners who live in areas with high deer population. Remember as plants grow, repellents must be applied to new growth. Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.a December 5, 2016 From: Diane Hiiden To: *RVCouncil Subject: Upcoming Council Decision on Roseville Pet Ordinance Date: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:17:54 AM �� of Roseville City Council Members, I am informed thnt you will be discussing n pet store ordinance for the City of Roseville at an upcoming Council meeting, tomorrow perhaps? As n Roseville resident I wholeheartedly support a "humane pet store model" that will protect future pet dogs and cats and insure their humane treatment within businesses that sell nnimals in Roseville. I am informed of the numerous compinints file by citizens against the Har Mar Pet Shop with regnrds to the inhumane sources for the animals sold and the inhumnne histories of their dogs and cnts for snle. I nm also informed that law enforcement and humane agents have made repeated calls to this business for years. A"humane pet store model" prohibits the sale of dogs and cnts ncquired from commercial breeding fncilities know ns puppy nnd kitten mills . This model will continue to allow, encourage even!, pet �riented businesses to v�iork with nnimol rescue groups and shelters to sponsor pet adoption days �. .. _'s � . . rei��_Uie pet shelters. _�; �� rt�r� t�e mass production and sale of puppies and kittens is terribly harmful to not only tne animcls but also to the bronder community who respond to and care for the unwanted, nbnndoned or hurt critters. It is my understnnding that nationU�ide over 200 rities hnve c!ready adopted simi!er or�;rcnczs ir, support of n humane pet store model I urge your support of this hu�,crz p�t �tcr� cr�;�-^---z ThankYo�_.' ",;-^- �_� Ros2vi �;2 From: noreply@civicplus.com To: *RVCouncil; Davm �'��nr,or; Pat_ T�udaeon Subject: Online Fortn Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Thursday, December O1, 2016 4:20:06 PM Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Contact Information Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.a. December 5. 2016 Sale of Pets in Roseville - Prohibit Sale of dogs and cats acquired from mass breeding facilities Bonnie � Roseville MN 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fili in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: No Reply Necessary - Please Share Your I am in favor of an ordinance that would prohibit the sale of dogs COmment, QueStl011 OI" and cats acquired from breeding facilities. I am in favor of Concern continuing to allow retailers to host adoption events with animal rescues and shelters. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From: noreply@civicplus.com To: *RVCouncil; Dawn 0' Conrer, Pat Tr:dc= on Subject: Online Fortn Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Thursday, December Ol, 2016 4:36:10 PM Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Contact Information Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Puppy Mill Ward & Cindy Schwie Roseville MN 55113 Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.a. December 5, 2016 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Email - Please Share Your We are hopeful that Roseville will opt to do the right thing and Comm2nt, QueSti011 Ot' ban the sale of animals from puppy mills. Having lived by this pet COnCer11 shop for the past 40 years and walked past it so many times we couldn't count, we look to Roseville to do the right thing and opt for a humane ordinance. Har Mar pet shop has the ability to either be a part of this community and have residents respect them and shop there or continue with the cruelty model they have adopted as the norm. The Humane Society is willing to work with this business to adopt a humane business model and we say YES! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.a. December 5, 2016 Email not dispiaying correctly� __-�- } ��, ^: _n;sa� Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.a. December 5, 2016 From: Sara Barsel To: Dan Roe; Lisa Laliberte; Beiak. Lisa; Jason E!*.en; Tammv h?cGehee; RoCer� Nlillmus Cc: Pat Trudgeon Subject: re: humane pet store model TONIGHT Date: Monday, December O5, 2016 1:25:30 PM Dan, Lisa, Jason, Tam, and Bob, We understand that you will be discussing a pet store ordinance for the City of Roseville at tonight's City Council meeting. We fully support a humane pet store model that will protect dogs and cats. In fact, we would like to see this ordinance expanded to include all animals (mammals, reptiles, birds, fish) sold in pet stores. We are submitting this letter of support for your information, and because we cannot attend tonight's CC meeting to make supporting comments. As residents of Roseville who are owners of rescued dogs and cats, and opponents of commercial breeding facilities, we urge you to adopt an ordinance implementing the humane pet store model for all facilities selling animals in the City of Roseville. Comments relative to a humane pet store ordinance: • Adoption events hosted by the pet store and run by local animal rescue groups and shelters replace the sale of cats and dogs obtained from commercial breeders. • Advantages of this model include: o Dogs and cats available for adoption are healthier animals, primarily living in supervised foster homes until participating in adoption events. This permits evaluation of behavior and physical/emotional needs of each animal. For e.g., one animal may be content and appropriate in a multi-animal household with children, another may be better as a single animal. This information contributes to the best long term adoptive home ("forever home) for the animal and the adoptive individual/family. o Rescue groups and shelters participating in these store-hosted adoption events run no-kill shelters and provide veterinary care for animals in their care system. o Encourage adopters to use services available through the store implementing this humane pet store model. o Reduce exposure of animal "stock" to neglect, illness, cruelty, etc. when housed in a traditional pet store, where staff are not trained in animal care and may not be supervised for ethical/kind behavior. o Decreases pet overpopulation, as shelter and rescue animals are/will be spade or neutered. o Decreases the number of homeless pets Supporting information: • Over 180 localities across the U.S. have adopted humane pet shop ordinances, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston. • Pet stores that adopt this model are well recognized in the community. Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.a. December 5, 2016 o Roseville pet stores that participate in this humane pet store model include ■ Chuck & Don's ■ Petco ■ PetSmart o The HarMar Pet Shop does not practice the humane pet store model. You are fully aware that there have been numerous complaints about this operation. To our knowledge, the latest is: ■ USDA inspection report from April 21, 2016 cites inadequate care for numerous animals. ■ HarMar Pet Shop purchases puppies from breeders cited for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, including • lack of veterinary care • filthy living conditions and inadequate pest control � broken and hazardous enclosures o Implementation and enforcement of a humane pet store model would permit Roseville to address the unconscionable conditions currently maintained by the HarMar Pet Shop. It would also prevent establishment of any other animal sales facilities which did not adhere to an enforceable humane pet store model. We look forward to your discussion and adoption of this ordinance. Sara Barsel and Randy Neprash Roseville, MN 55113 From: To: Subject: Date: noreply@civicplus.com *RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor, Pat Trudoeon Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Sunday, December 04, 2016 10:46:39 AM Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Contact Information Name: Address: Clty: State: Zip: city space needs roger hess jr ROSEVILLE Minnesota 55113 Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.b. December 5, 2016 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: No Reply Necessary 0 Please Share Your councilmember, during your space needs discussion, i hope the Comment, Question or following wili be discussed: 1) where does the historical society fit Concern into these suggestions? 2) what is the huge indoor parking garage that was built for storing impounded vehicles being used for now? i believe you now contract for storage of these vehicles. that is a huge space that could be used as other storage or office space 3) how about option E- extend the city hall to the east with a 6,000 square foot lower level for office space and the historical society, and a 6,000 square foot license center at parking lot level, that is in line with the current building so you would have space to build a small parking lot in front of the license center to the north, therefore it would not interfere with current parking lot needs and customers would not need to walk far to reach the license center. also, you would not need to build bathrooms since Bench Handout Agenda Item 15.b. December 5, 2016 people could use those in the current city hall. then the license center and the additional office space would be part of city hall. you wouldn't want to mess with the nice glass wall at the east end of the current building, so start a new section a few feet away from the current building, but connect the two at the lower level. 4) the current price for constructing medium value office space in st. paul is about $105 per square foot - high value space is around $140.00, so for less than $1.5 million, you could have a really nice license center and office space connected to city hall. 5) i think parking would be a headache if you converted the pubiic works building to a license center/other uses, but it would be the start of a great community center where you could build several basketball/volleyball courts and maybe a small black box theater, and other spaces. most of these activities occur at night so parking shouldn't be a problem. 6) it's too bad you didn't have these discussions earlier so you wouldn't need to waste another year or two of rent at the current license center. good luck with your discussions! roger roger hess jr Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? �r�;��,v it in �,.�ur_�o�ris2r