Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-11-12 - Council Agenda Packet
Agenda Corcoran City Council November 12, 2015 - 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Agenda Approval 4. Open Forum 5. Presentations a. Elm Creek Watershed Commission Chair – Doug Baines* 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of October 22, 2015 Council Meeting* b. KDV Engagement Letter* c. Ice Rink Attendant Job Description and Hiring Authorization* d. CIP Portable Radio Replacement* 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500)* b. All Other Financial Claims* 8. Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions a. Financial Performance Report* b. Community Advisory Team Update* 9. Planning Business / Landform a. Street Right-of-Way and Easement Vacation* 10. Unfinished Business a. City Council Compensation* b. City Council Email Addresses* c. Hazardous Property Update – 20112 County Road 10* 11. New Business a. Ordinance Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants* b. Background Check Policy* c. Draft 2016 Fee Schedule* 12. Unscheduled Items 13. 2015 Council Schedule* 14. Council Liaison Calendar Planning Commission 11/05/15 12/03/15 Guenthner Guenthner Parks and Trails Commission 11/17/15 12/15/15 Guenthner LaFave 15. Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 5a. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Elm Creek Watershed Commission Chair – Doug Baines Action Required: None-Informational Summary: The November 12, 2015 City Council meeting will include a presentation from Elm Creek Watershed Commission Chair Doug Baines. Doug will be providing background to the Council on what the Elm Creek Watershed Commission is as well as what it is focused on in upcoming meetings. Also at the meeting will be Corcoran’s Elm Creek Watershed Commissioner, John Bottema. He and Doug will be available for any questions from the Council. Financial/Budget: N/A Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Options: N/A Recommendation: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A Presentation made November 12, 2015 for the city of Corcoran Good evening Mr. Mayor, Counselors, Staff and Guests. I am Doug Baines Chair of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. Thank you for allowing me to speak with you this evening con- cerning the Elm Creek Watershed. History has shown we have abused our Lakes and Rivers. What comes to mind? The Union Stockyards in Chicago or the burning Cuyahoga River in Cleveland. There are many more stories that are similar in nature down through history. Growing public awareness and concerns about pollution led to action by the federal government. Several agencies were combined and in 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency was created. One of the first rulings by the new (EPA) was the 1970 Clean Air Act. This was followed by the 1972 Clean Water Act. The rules adopted 1972 where lightly defined and difficult to implement. Nonetheless the act did direct state government to create watershed districts or watershed organizations. These districts and organiza- tions in Minnesota report to the Board of Soil and Water Resources which intern report to the Minneso- ta Pollution Control Agency and on to the Federal EPA. In 2001 and 2006 there where two Supreme Court rulings directing the EPA to clarify its rules. The outcome was the clean water rules were clarified and more precisely defined. It became more predicta- ble and easier for business and industry do understand the clean water rules. In Minnesota there are watershed districts and watershed organizations. We are governed by a water- shed organization made up of seven metropolitan cities in a joint powers arrangement. Our members are each appointed by there represented city. Funding is assessed to each member city based on there market value. In 2015 Maple Grove paid 55% of our budget of $209,000.00 followed by Rogers at 15 %. Corcoran pays 6.35% of the 209,000.00 or $13,625.00. Watershed projects are done by member cities. The watershed pays up to 25% of a project with the remainder coming form the city and grants they have obtained. The 25% that the watershed covers is an ad valorem tax collected by the county. Elm Creek watershed encompasses a total of 130 mi.z of which Corcoran is the largest area at 36 mi.2. Followed by Maple Grove, Rogers, and Dayton. There are other cities involved but do not have their entire conum mity in our Watershed. Those cities include Champlin, Medina and Plymouth. Corcoran has approximately 31 sub watersheds within the Elm Creek watershed. Elm Creek is a sub watershed of the Mississippi River watershed. There are 1$ million people that relay on the Mississippi for there primary water source. Outside Minnesota there are very few wells suppling water. Most of the area down stream from here use surface water from Rivers, Lakes and Reserves. All of our water flows to the Mississippi River and then into the Gulf of Mexico contributing to the dead zone which contin- ues to grow in the gulf. I fly over the confluence of the Mississippi and the gulf and it is breathtaking to see the contrast in water clarity from the air. The commissions purpose is 1, Protecting, preserving, and using natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems 2, Minimizing public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems 3, Identifying and planning for means to effectively protect and improve surface and ground water quality 4, Establishing more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management. 5, Preventing erosion of soil into surface water systems. 6, Promoting groundwater recharge 7, Protecting in enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. This takes place with a Management Plan that we update every 10 years. We presently have our Third Generation Water Management plan before MPCA for comment. To meet our goals here are a few actions we are taking. 1, Review local development in redevelopment plans for conformance with our standards outlined in our watershed management plan. 2, Serve as a local government unit (LGU) for administering the wetland conservation act (WCA) for the cities of Champlin and Corcoran. 3, Conduct lake and stream monitoring programs to track water quality and quantity conditions 8, Continue development of the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) implementation plan. 9, We are members of the Metro West Water Alliance. This is a educational program that we share with three other watershed organizations to lower our costs. A education program that publishes newsletter called water links. We also promote the watershed through a program to reach fourth grade students on watershed issues. This has been very successful. 10, Work in partnership with Hennepin County's agricultural specialist to promote agricultural BMP's. A water body is impaired or polluted if it fails to meet one or more quality standards. Federal standards exist for basic pollutants such as sediment, bacteria, nitrates and mercury. The clean water act (CWA) requires the Minnesota pollution control agency (MPCA) to identify and restore impaired waters. In the Elm Creek watershed the impairments include Sediment, Chloride, E -coli and others. For each impair- ment on the list the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires completion of a TMDL total maximum daily load. The TMDL describes both a process and a number. The process typically involves 2 to 4 years of technical study, intensive stakeholder public input. The number is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. The water quality standards are that the water body should be swimmable, fishable and recreational. A TMDL study needs to be con- ducted within 15 years of being placed on the impaired list. After the TMDL is approved a detailed implementation plan must be finalized to meet the TMDLs pol- lution load allocation and achieve the needed reductions in point source and non -point source pollu- tion to restore the water body. The consequences for not complying with the TMDL is the CWA prohibits new or expanded discharge. This can be detrimental to development in your community. It can also restrict expansion of businesses throughout your community. The TMDL is before MPCA. Upon approval, they will forward to EPA for approval — next year sometime. WRAPS is being finalized and sent to MPCA. They will return comments to the commission. Commission will hold TAC /stakeholder meeting to take addition comment before sending back to MPCA for approval. One of the first steps in our TMDL process the watershed conducted a channel study which resulted in new development standards. This requires that all new development must retain the first one inch of rainfall. This can be difficult in some soils. The next step is allocation. The allocated amount of pollutants that must be removed from your city are being finalized at this time. I would look for this number in the coming months. I would also make sure that you budget some funds for the allocation implementation phase of the TMDL. The TMDL will include point source and non -point source pollutants. The point source pollutant would be sewer systems that are connected to the Met Council pipe. The non -point pollutants would be from runoff in residential areas and agriculture. At this time there are approximately 2700 large animals they reside in our watershed. Each large ani- mal contributes approximately 15 pounds of phosphorus resulting in a total of approximately 20 tons of phosphorus per year. You can see if we could improve our BMPs we could remove a large portion of this phosphorus. The other area of concern is in row crops. Presently the ag- ricultural community has adopted a fertilize plan that will limit the amount of nitrate applied to the fields. This is the first step in addressing non -point source pollution in the agricultural community. More needs to be done in this area to comply with the new TMDL standard. Thank you Doug Baines City of Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes October 22, 2015 - 7:00 PM The Corcoran City Council met on October 22, 2015, at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Mayor Guenthner, Councilor Hank, Councilor Keefe, Councilor LaFave, and Councilor Thomas. Also present were City Administrator Martens, City Attorney Carson; Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, City Engineer Torve, and City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Guenthner invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Agenda Approval MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Keefe to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 4. Open Forum Danielle Paulson, 6564 Carriage Way, addressed the council on the sewer billing item on the agenda tonight. Specifically Ms. Paulson raised concerns on the sewer rate and sewer base fee compared to the rates of surrounding cities. John Newstrom, 6471 Carriage Way, addressed the council on the sewer billing item on the agenda tonight. Mr. Newstrom requested that the City utilize a flat rate for water billing as the current fee is high. Mr. Newstrom requested that the City reduce the base fee for sewer to $7.21 per month for the marketability of the City. Mr. Newstrom requested that the City change the sewer tier to calculate a fee applied every 5,000 gallons. 5. Presentations No presentations were heard. 6. Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of the October 8th, 2015 Council Meeting b. Hennepin County User Agreement – Pictometry Councilor Hank asked that item a. be considered separately. Councilor Hank noted a clerical change to the date in the October 8th minutes. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Hank to approve the item a. as amended. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Thomas seconded by Keefe to approve the item b. as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 7. Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to approve the escrow claims as presented. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) b. All Financial Claims MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Thomas to approve all other financial claims as presented. City of Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes October 22, 2015 - 7:00 PM Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) 8. Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions a. Planning Update received, no action required. b. Code Compliance Report received, no action required. c. Tax Increment Financing Report Councilor LaFave inquired about the land acquisition allocation. Mayor Gunthner noted the City had TIF funds available and in order to utilize funds in the future, the City had to designate uses for the funds. City Administrator Martens noted the decision for the use of land acquisition funding should be decided before the City issues debt for the downtown sewer and water project in February. 9. Planning Business / Landform No planning business was presented. 10. Unfinished Business No unfished business was presented. 11. New Business a. Public Hearing – Downtown Utility and Street Improvement Project Assessments City Administrator Martens presented the report. City Administrator Martens outlined the history of the project from 2013 and noted the community outreach activities including surveys and public meetings. City Administrator Martens outlined the financing mechanisms of TIF Funds, trunk fees, utility funds and assessments. City Administrator Martens outlined the types of assessments and payment scenarios of payment up front or financing through the City over a 10 year period for all City fees. Mayor Guenthner opened the public hearing. Diane Benson, 20037 County Road 10 (Stanchion), requested that the City only consider the access onto the county road as her access, Ms. Benson noted that the secondary access was not supposed to be an access. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) Council discussed Ms. Benson’s request for assessment modification and how to ensure the City is paid for improvements when County Roads 10 and 50 are improved. City Attorney Carson noted if the City would adopt the assessment the City could abate the fee if it was determined a lower fee should be paid. City Administrator Martens noted the City could look at other options such as a deferred assessment for future improvements. Councilors discussed if future improvements are made to County Roads 10 and 50 access would change and at that time the City would assess those affected property owners. Blocking off the secondary access on Ms. Benton’s property was discussed as a condition of removing the street assessment. City Administrator Martens noted the change to language in the resolution for the start date of interest assessed to the assessment. MOTION: made by Thomas, seconded by Keefe to approve Resolution 2015-52 Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Downtown Street Utility and Street Improvement Project as presented in the redline version with the modification to PID 26-119-23-11-0007 amended to $15,000. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) Staff was directed to work with Ms. Benson to block of the secondary access onto Commerce Street. City of Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes October 22, 2015 - 7:00 PM b. Ordinance Amendment Request – Ground Mounted Solar City Administrator Martens presented the report and asked council if they are in favor where ground mounted solar should go and who should pay for the ordinance amendment. Council discussed the zoning, the size of the projects. City Administrator Martens noted that this would not change the property valuation and there are funding incentives currently in place for ground mounted solar that will be expiring. Nathan Rogers from Ecoplexus discussed solar gardens, the size limitations of a solar garden being 40 acres of solar panels and items that may be considered with the ordinance such as screening and setbacks City Administrator Martens noted that we would look to other cities ordinances get most of the core issues addressed in an effort to stay within the escrow amount. In response to Council questions, Mr. Rogers discussed the following items: the solar garden would require a 30 year lease of the property; ground maintenance would be required; the garden has minimal impervious surface; the garden offers possible local tax impacts of the solar garden. MOTION: made by LaFave to direct staff to draft an ordinance for consideration and require a $5,000 escrow. (Motion Failed, no second) Councilors noted that this would be an opportunity for education on the topic. MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Guenthner to direct staff to draft an ordinance for consideration and require a $5,000 escrow. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) c. Utility Billing Process – Sewer Billing City Administrator Martens presented the report outlining the history of how the billing was created, the need to covering expenses and compared an average bill with the City’s process and other processes. Council discussed that there is an issue billing and that they are interested in reviewing options that would address new sod watering and while continuing to address water conservation. Per consensus, Council directed staff to bring different philosophies for the Council to review in the non-growing season. d. City Council Email Addresses City Administrator Martens presented the report noting that the email from the City can’t be forwarded to a personal email. Council discussed the positives for communication. Per consensus, staff was directed to initiate City Council email addresses with a request for additional information on how to best implement. e. Grant Opportunity – 2015 Business District Initiative City Administrator Martens presented the report, noting minimal staff time would be required and that the market study would be a useful tool. Per consensus, staff was directed to apply for the grant. 12. Unscheduled Items No unscheduled items were presented. 13. 2015 Council Schedule City Administrator Martens reviewed the draft upcoming council schedule. 14. Council Liaison Calendar Council calendar was not reviewed, but available in the Council packet. 15. Adjournment MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Thomas to adjourn. Voting Aye: Guenthner, Hank, Keefe, LaFave, and Thomas (Motion carried 5:0) City of Corcoran City Council Meeting Minutes October 22, 2015 - 7:00 PM Meeting adjourned at 8:44 pm. ________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator October 16, 2015 Mayor and City Council City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 The City of Corcoran has previously contracted for various hours of accounting and consulting services with BerganKDV (formerly KDV). The purpose of this letter is to revise the engagement for ongoing services. We are proposing one or more of (but not limited to) the following consulting services: A. Assistance with preparation of 2015 audit working papers for the City’s independent auditors – as requested B. Ongoing 2015-2016 accounting, finance, training, and consulting services – as requested You agree that it is appropriate to limit the liability of BerganKDV, Ltd. its shareholders, directors, officers, employees and agents and that this limitation of remedies provision is governed by the laws of Minnesota, without giving effect to choice of law principles. You further agree that you will not hold us liable for any claim, cost or damage, whether based on warranty, tort, contract or other law, arising from or related to this agreement, the services provided under this agreement, the work product, or for any plans, actions or results of this engagement, except to the extent authorized by this agreement. In no event shall we be liable to you for any indirect, special, incidental, consequential, punitive or exemplary damages, or for loss of profits or loss of goodwill, costs or attorney’s fees. The exclusive remedy available to you shall be the right to pursue claims for actual damages that are directly caused by acts or omissions that are breaches by us of our duties under this agreement. The City of Corcoran agrees to perform the following functions in connection with this engagement: Make all management decisions and perform all management functions Designate a competent individual to oversee the services 6b. Evaluate the adequacy and results of the services performed Accept responsibility for the results of the services Establish and maintain internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities Our charges for services, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, will be billed as the work progresses on a monthly basis. Payments for our services are due upon receipt of our billing. These services will be billed at the rate of $150 per hour. When, and if, our hours or billings approach estimated amounts, we will discuss the progress of the above consulting services with you. We will also provide the City with progress reports on objectives accomplished on an “as requested” basis. Should our relationship terminate before our engagement is completed, you will be billed for services to the date of termination. All bills are payable upon receipt. A service charge of 1% per month, which is an annual rate of 12%, will be added to all accounts unpaid 30 days after billing date. If collection action is necessary, expenses and reasonable attorney’s fees will be added to the amount due. Any disputes between us that arise under this agreement, or for a breach of this agreement, or that arise out of any other services performed by us for you, must be submitted to non - binding mediation before either of us can start a lawsuit against the other. To conduct mediation, each of us shall designate a representative with authority to fully resolve any and all disputes, and those representatives shall meet and attempt to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If that effort fails, then a competent and impartial third party acceptable to each side shall be appointed to hold and conduct a non -binding mediation proceeding. You and we will equally share in the expenses of the mediator and each of us will pay for our own attorneys’ fees, if any. No lawsuit or legal process shall be commenced until at least sixty (60) days after the mediator’s first meeting with the parties. The nature of our engagement makes it inherently difficult, with the passage of time, to present evidence in a lawsuit that fully and fairly establishes the facts underlying any dispute that may arise between us. We both agree that notwithstanding any stat ute of limitation that might otherwise apply to a claim or dispute, including one arising out of this agreement or the services performed under this agreement, or for breach of contract, fraud or misrepresentation, a lawsuit must be commenced within twenty-four (24) months after the date of our report. This twenty-four (24) month period applies and starts to run on the date of each report, even if we continue to perform services in later periods and even if you or we have not become aware of the existence of a claim or the basis for a possible claim. In the event that a claim or dispute is not asserted at least sixty (60) days before the expiration of this twenty-four (24) month period, then the period of limitation shall be extended by sixty (60) days, to allow the parties to conduct non-binding mediation. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Corcoran and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. At any time, please feel free to contact Matt Mayer at 952-563-6873 or Joe Rigdon at 952-563-6868. Sincerely, Matthew Mayer Certified Public Accountant Joe Rigdon Certified Public Accountant RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota. By: Title: Date: RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota. By: Title: Date: STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6c. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Ice Rink Attendant Job Description and Hiring Authorization Action Required: Approval Summary: Annually the City employs rink attendants to staff the warming house. This position has been advertised. Applications will be accepted until November 20th. Staff would like to interview and hire the needed rink attendants. Staff has updated the job description for the position as it had not been updated since 2009. Financial/Budget: The position has been accounted for in the 2015 and 2016 budgets. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Options: 1) Approve the job description and authorize staff to hire rink attendants for the 2015- 2016 ice rink season. 2) Direct staff to take no further action. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the job description and authorization to hire the needed seasonal rink attendants. Page 2 Council Action: Consider a motion to approve the ice rink attendant job description and authorize staff to hire the needed seasonal rink attendants. Attachments: Rink Attendant Job Description ICE RINK ATTENDANT ©City of Corcoran 2015 1 Job Summary: Ice Rink Attendant position oversees, monitors, and ensures all safety regulations and rink policies are followed at the Corcoran skating rinks. The Skating Rink Attendant position assists with shoveling of snow, maintenance of warming house and general upkeep of skating rinks. Scope of Impact: The Ice Rink Attendant is responsible for monitoring the visitors to the Corcoran skating rinks and ensuring safety regulations and policies are followed. Essential Duties and Responsibilities: Oversees recreational activities at Corcoran skating rinks. Monitors and ensures safety regulations and rink safety policies are followed by visitors to the rink. Shoveling snow on sidewalk accesses near warming house. Perform general maintenance of rink and warming house as directed by the Public Works Superintendent. Lifting/Moving 50 pounds from ice rink to warming house (hockey nets). Minimum Qualifications: Must be at least 16 years of age or older. Have a Flexible schedule on weekends and week nights. Be able to read instructions and warning labels and verbally communicate rink instructions and rules to the general public. Ability to effectively communicate pertinent information to Public Works Superintendent and the City Hall staff when necessary. Desired Qualifications: Previous experience as an Ice Rink Attendant. Knowledge of the functions the Public Works department in local government. Previous experience supervising recreation activities and/or light maintenance experience. Ability to skate. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Required for Successful Job Performance: General customer service skills including ability to communicate rules and safety policies to the general public regarding the Corcoran Skating Rinks. Ability to effectively communicate pertinent information to Public Works Superintendent and the City Hall staff when necessary. Knowledge of how an ice rink is built and maintained. Physical and Mental Requirements: Physical effort is medium, with lifting or carrying up to 50 pounds intermittently. Working Conditions: Work is performed inside the warming house and also outside on the rinks. Working conditions are dependent on weather forecasts and may include a variety of cold weather conditions. Department: Public Works Reports To: Public Works Superintendent FLSA Seasonal Revision Date: October 2015 City of Corcoran ICE RINK ATTENDANT ©City of Corcoran 2015 2 Some requirements in this job description may exclude individuals who pose a direct threat or significant risk to the health and safety of themselves or other employees. All requirements are subject to modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities. Requirements are representative of minimum levels of knowledge, skills, and experience required. To perform this job successfully, the worker must possess the abilities and aptitudes to perform each duty proficiently. This document does not create an employment contract, implied or otherwise, other than an "at will" employment relationship. The City Administrator retains the discretion to add duties or change the duties of this position at any time. Employee Signature and Date: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor and / or Department Head Signature and Date: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6d. Council Meeting: November 12th 2015 Prepared By: Lieutenant Ryan Burns Topic: CIP Portable Radio Replacement Action Required: Approval Summary: Corcoran Police is in year three of a five year replacement plan for replacing our portable radios that the officers carry. These radios will become obsolete and will not function on the Hennepin County / State of Minnesota 800 MHz radio system after 2017. These radios have been identified as needing replacement and have been budgeted for in the current CIP plan. The City of Corcoran also received a matching community grant from CenterPoint Energy. Price quote is State of Minnesota contract pricing. Financial/Budget: Radios will be funded from: 2015 CIP Support and Protection - $7500 2015 CenterPoint Energy Matching Grant - $2500 2015 Police Reserve fund- $1435 Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Recommendation: Approve purchase of three portable radios Council Action: Approve purchase of three portable radios consistent with replacement and CIP plan. Attachments: 1. Motorola Solutions Quote -QU0000329734 Quote Number:QU0000329734 Effective:06 AUG 2015 Effective To:21 NOV 2015 Bill-To:Ultimate Destination: CORCORAN POLICE DEPT, CITY OF CORCORAN POLICE DEPT, CITY OF 8200 COUNTY RD 116 8200 COUNTY RD 116 CORCORAN, MN 55340 CORCORAN, MN 55340 United States United States Attention:Sales Contact: Name:Ryan Burns Name:Randy Beach Email:RBurns@ci.corcoran.mn.us Email:randy.beach@ancom.org Phone:763-420-8966 Phone:763-428-7884 Request For Quote:3 APX6000Li Model 2.5 PBLS w/BT, DES, MK, and 2 YR SfS Contract Number:MINNESOTA DOT Freight terms:FOB Destination Payment terms:Net 30 Due Item Quantity Nomenclature Description List price Your price Extended Price 1 3 H98UCF9PW6AN APX6000 700/800 MODEL 2.5 PORTABLE $2,588.00 $1,650.00 $4,950.00 1a 3 H885BK ENH: 2 YR SfS LITE $84.00 $84.00 $252.00 1b 3 QA01648AA ADD: ADVANCED SYSTEM KEY - HARDWARE KEY $5.00 $3.75 $11.25 1c 3 H869BZ ENH: MULTIKEY $330.00 $247.50 $742.50 1d 3 Q625AX ENH: DES,DES-XL,DES-OFB ENCRYPTION $599.00 $449.25 $1,347.75 1e 3 QA01837AA ALT: LIION IMPRES IP67 2900MAH (NNTN7038) $100.00 $75.00 $225.00 1f 3 QA02756AA ADD: 9600 TRUNKING OR 3600 DIGITAL TRUNKING $1,570.00 $1,177.50 $3,532.50 1g 3 H122BR ALT: 1/4- WAVE 7/800 GPS STUBBY (NAR6595A $24.00 $18.00 $54.00 2 3 NNTN7038B BATT IMPRES LIION IP67 3100T $142.00 $106.50 $319.50 Total Quote in USD $11,434.50 System ID 740F - Radios will ship un-programmed - PO Worksheet Attached - Thank you for your order!! Randy Beach - 763-428-7884 THIS QUOTE IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1 This quotation is provided to you for information purposes only and is not intended to be an offer or a binding proposal. If you wish to purchase the quoted products, Motorola Solutions, Inc. ("Motorola") will be pleased to provide you with our standard terms and conditions of sale (which will include the capitalized provisions below), or alternatively, receive your purchase order which will be acknowledged. Thank you for your consideration of Motorola products. 2 Quotes are exclusive of all installation and programming charges (unless expressly stated) and all applicable taxes. 3 Purchaser will be responsible for shipping costs, which will be added to the invoice. 4 Prices quoted are valid for thirty(30) days from the date of this quote. 5 Unless otherwise stated, payment will be due within thirty days after invoice. Invoicing will occur concurrently with shipping. MOTOROLA DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE ORDERED PRODUCTS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MOTOROLA'S TOTAL LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE ORDERED PRODUCTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PRODUCTS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH LOSSES OR DAMAGES ARE CLAIMED. IN NO EVENT WILL MOTOROLA BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. Council Meeting: October 12, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Financial Performance Report Action Required: None – Informational Summary: Attached to this report is the updated Financial Performance Report through October 31, 2015. The updated report shows a surplus of approximately $60,000 which is a $65,736 change in position from the last report. The following outlines the major changes from the last report: Revenue • Zoning/Land Use Application fee: +$1000 o Increased due to higher than expected applications • Building Plan Review Fees: +$35,000 o Increased due to additional new home permits Expenditures • Employer Paid Health: -$18,043 o Decrease due to employees not selecting coverage through the City • Building Inspections: +$23,000 o Increased fees associated with additional new home permits • Seal Coating: -$4,300 o Actual amount spent • Asphalt Maint/Patching: -$2,433 o Actual amount spent • Utility & Services (Public Works): -$10,000 o Projecting lower than anticipated costs • Parks Wages & Salaries: -$10,788 o Lower than projected wages The net position of the City is significantly improved from earlier in the year when a shortfall was projected. Staff will continue to refine projections for our final performance report in December. Financial/Budget: The 2015 budget includes a $10,000 transfer to reserves. Any additional surplus would be added to the reserves unless reallocated for a different purpose. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility, and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Options: N/A Recommendation N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: 1. Financial Performance Report CITY OF CORCORAN 2015 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND OCTOBER 31, 2015 8a. 1 of 5 2015 Variance Account Description 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS REVENUE Other General Government R 100-41900-31100 General Property Taxes 2,776,339.34 2,887,749.00 1,475,149.22 1,412,599.78 48.92%2,887,749.00 0.00 R 100-41900-31810 Cable Franchise Fee 40,320.82 40,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 100.00%40,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-32110 Liquor License Fee 18,270.00 18,250.00 18,500.00 -250.00 -1.37%18,500.00 250.00 R 100-41900-33402 Homestead Credit 11,404.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33420 Ag Preserve Credit 0.00 5,000.00 12,047.71 -7,047.71 -140.95%12,048.00 7,048.00 R 100-41900-33421 PERA State Aid 1,845.00 1,845.00 922.50 922.50 50.00%1,845.00 0.00 R 100-41900-33422 Other State Grants and Aids 7,058.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34000 Charges for Services 101.50 0.00 10.00 -10.00 0.00%10.00 10.00 R 100-41900-34103 Zoning/Land Use Appl Fee 25,785.00 6,000.00 14,020.00 -8,020.00 -133.67%14,020.00 8,020.00 R 100-41900-34105 Copies/Maps 187.15 150.00 53.75 96.25 64.17%75.00 -75.00 R 100-41900-34107 Special Assessment Search 25.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00%0.00 -50.00 R 100-41900-34108 TIF Administration 0.00 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 100.00%8,000.00 0.00 R 100-41900-34405 Clean Up Day Income 1,425.00 675.00 1,803.00 -1,128.00 -167.11%1,803.00 1,128.00 R 100-41900-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 10,775.00 2,500.00 3,795.00 -1,295.00 -51.80%3,795.00 1,295.00 R 100-41900-36210 Interest Earnings 426.98 2,000.00 710.58 1,289.42 64.47%1,000.00 -1,000.00 R 100-41900-36220 Other Rents and Royalties 9,840.00 9,840.00 9,840.00 0.00 0.00%9,840.00 0.00 R 100-41900-36230 Donations 1,250.62 1,000.00 568.29 431.71 43.17%570.00 -430.00 R 100-41900-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 2,905,054.31$ 2,983,059.00$ 1,537,420.05$ 2,999,255.00$ 16,196.00$ City Hall Operations R 100-41941-34101 Facility Rental 6,700.00 5,000.00 6,312.50 -1,312.50 -26.25%6,313.00 1,313.00 R 100-41941-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 982.96 1,000.00 75.86 924.14 92.41%76.00 -924.00 7,682.96$ 6,000.00$ 6,388.36$ 6,389.00$ 389.00$ Police R 100-42100-33423 Police Aid 53,311.89 45,000.00 55,164.61 -10,164.61 -22.59%55,165.00 10,165.00 R 100-42100-33424 Police POST Board Train Reimb 3,861.72 3,700.00 3,664.98 35.02 0.95%3,665.00 -35.00 R 100-42100-33620 Other County Grants/Aid 12,842.19 7,500.00 6,254.36 1,245.64 16.61%7,500.00 0.00 Pass through only - (100-42100-111) R 100-42100-34200 Police Permits 2,392.00 2,000.00 2,400.00 -400.00 -20.00%2,400.00 400.00 R 100-42100-34201 Police Serviced Charges 9,747.50 7,500.00 2,615.00 4,885.00 65.13%10,000.00 2,500.00 Pass through only - (100-42100-111) R 100-42100-34202 Police Reports/Fees 784.00 1,000.00 549.00 451.00 45.10%1,000.00 0.00 R 100-42100-35101 Fines 39,995.48 60,000.00 32,619.14 27,380.86 45.63%45,000.00 -15,000.00 R 100-42100-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements 1,080.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 124,014.78$ 126,700.00$ 103,267.09$ 124,730.00$ (1,970.00)$ Building Inspection R 100-42400-32210 Bldg/Plan Review Fees 114,136.68$ 193,000.00$ 275,656.26$ (82,656.26)$ -42.83%285,000.00$ 92,000.00$ Public Works R 100-43100-33418 Muni State Aid St Maintenance 130,468.10 120,000.00 122,524.20 -2,524.20 -2.10%122,524.00 2,524.00 R 100-43100-34300 Public Works Permits/Fees 2,430.00 3,000.00 2,815.00 185.00 6.17%3,000.00 0.00 R 100-43100-34301 Dust Control 53,696.56 55,530.00 50,910.19 4,619.81 8.32%50,910.00 -4,620.00 R 100-43100-36100 Special Assessments 20,295.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 R 100-43100-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 2,662.50 0.00 10,360.49 -10,360.49 0.00%10,360.00 10,360.00 209,552.37$ #178,530.00$ 186,609.88$ 186,794.00$ 8,264.00$ Ice & Snow Removal R 100-43125-36200 Ice & Snow Removal/Miscellaneous Rev 7,926.45$ 8,000.00$ 21,742.72$ (13,742.72)$ -171.78%21,743.00$ 13,743.00$ Recycling R 100-43232-33610 County Recycling Grant 14,845.00 14,500.00 8,419.50 6,080.50 41.93%14,500.00 0.00 R 100-43232-34400 Recycling 60,554.80 62,000.00 57,004.93 4,995.07 8.06%57,005.00 -4,995.00 75,399.80$ 76,500.00$ 65,424.43$ 71,505.00$ (4,995.00)$ Parks R 100-45200-33422 Other State Grants and Aids 37,302.30 37,302.00 38,315.85 -1,013.85 -2.72%38,316.00 1,014.00 NW Trails Grant R 100-45200-34101 Facility Rental 1,289.98 1,000.00 5,088.14 -4,088.14 -408.81%5,088.00 4,088.00 R 100-45200-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 25.00 0.00 50.00 -50.00 0.00%50.00 50.00 R 100-45200-36230 Donations 900.00 0.00 5,800.00 -5,800.00 0.00%5,800.00 5,800.00 $5,300 picnic tables 100-45200-221 39,517.28$ 38,302.00$ 49,253.99$ 49,254.00$ 10,952.00$ Total Revenue 3,483,285$ 3,610,091$ 2,245,763$ 3,744,670$ 134,579.00$ CITY OF CORCORAN 2015 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND OCTOBER 31, 2015 8a. 2 of 5 Account Description 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS EXPENSE City Council E 100-41100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)6,600.00 6,600.00 3,300.00 3,300.00 50.00%6,600.00 0.00 E 100-41100-122 FICA 409.20 409.00 204.60 204.40 49.98%409.00 0.00 E 100-41100-126 Medicare 95.70 96.00 47.85 48.15 50.16%96.00 0.00 E 100-41100-208 Training and Instruction 0.00 1,000.00 315.00 685.00 68.50%500.00 -500.00 E 100-41100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 54.00 104.00 66.00 38.00 36.54%66.00 -38.00 7,158.90$ 8,209.00$ 3,933.45$ 7,671.00$ (538.00)$ Newspaper/Newsletter/Website E 100-41130-351 Newsletter Expenses 4,283.15 4,750.00 3,701.82 1,048.18 22.07%4,750.00 0.00 E 100-41130-354 Web Site 750.00 700.00 750.00 -50.00 -7.14%750.00 50.00 5,033.15$ 5,450.00$ 4,451.82$ 5,500.00$ 50.00$ City Administrator E 100-41300-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)93,398.27 92,912.00 79,865.56 13,046.44 14.04%92,912.00 0.00 E 100-41300-121 PERA 6,778.72 6,736.00 5,989.92 746.08 11.08%6,736.00 0.00 E 100-41300-122 FICA 5,417.73 5,761.00 4,927.64 833.36 14.47%5,761.00 0.00 E 100-41300-126 Medicare 1,267.00 1,347.00 1,152.44 194.56 14.44%1,347.00 0.00 E 100-41300-131 Employer Paid Health 16,894.49 15,567.00 14,036.25 1,530.75 9.83%15,567.00 0.00 E 100-41300-208 Training and Instruction 3,905.65 4,000.00 3,580.13 419.87 10.50%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-41300-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)980.02 700.00 200.00 500.00 71.43%700.00 0.00 E 100-41300-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 477.00 753.00 506.00 247.00 32.80%506.00 -247.00 E 100-41300-433 Dues and Memberships 111.60 850.00 969.78 -119.78 -14.09%1,000.00 150.00 129,230.48$ 128,626.00$ 111,227.72$ 128,529.00$ (97.00)$ Clerk/Admin E 100-41400-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)120,570.42 118,212.00 106,851.89 11,360.11 9.61%136,500.00 18,288.00 E 100-41400-110 Overtime 568.62 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00%1,000.00 -1,000.00 E 100-41400-121 PERA 8,708.92 8,716.00 7,267.74 1,448.26 16.62%10,000.00 1,284.00 E 100-41400-122 FICA 7,041.68 7,453.00 5,968.70 1,484.30 19.92%8,500.00 1,047.00 E 100-41400-126 Medicare 1,653.81 1,744.00 1,395.94 348.06 19.96%2,000.00 256.00 E 100-41400-131 Employer Paid Health 31,132.58 32,068.00 28,232.39 3,835.61 11.96%39,000.00 6,932.00 E 100-41400-140 Unemployment Comp (GENERAL)0.00 0.00 11,039.00 -11,039.00 0.00%15,106.00 15,106.00 E 100-41400-208 Training and Instruction 524.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 100.00%1,000.00 -1,500.00 E 100-41400-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)186.52 500.00 150.53 349.47 69.89%500.00 0.00 E 100-41400-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 954.00 1,344.00 1,012.00 332.00 24.70%1,012.00 -332.00 E 100-41400-433 Dues and Memberships 35.00 150.00 340.00 -190.00 -126.67%340.00 190.00 171,375.55$ 174,687.00$ 162,258.19$ 214,958.00$ 40,271.00$ Elections E 100-41410-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)8,732.58$ 1,500.00$ -$ 1,500.00$ 100.00%500.00$ (1,000.00)$ Auditor/Treasurer E 100-41540-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)26,750.00$ 26,000.00$ 23,236.50$ 2,763.50$ 10.63%26,000.00$ -$ Assessor E 100-41550-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)882.15 1,000.00 767.42 232.58 23.26%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41550-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)53,707.71 55,956.00 42,075.86 13,880.14 24.81%55,956.00 0.00 54,589.86$ 56,956.00$ 42,843.28$ 56,956.00$ -$ Attorney E 100-41600-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)16,526.67 31,000.00 11,830.69 19,169.31 61.84%20,000.00 -11,000.00 16,526.67$ 31,000.00$ 11,830.69$ 19,169.31$ 20,000.00$ (11,000.00)$ Other General Government E 100-41900-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)2,722.55 3,000.00 2,992.00 8.00 0.27%2,992.00 -8.00 E 100-41900-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)15,243.50 4,000.00 5,163.25 -1,163.25 -29.08%5,164.00 1,164.00 E 100-41900-360 Insurance (GENERAL)64,813.00 67,400.00 67,770.00 -370.00 -0.55%67,770.00 370.00 E 100-41900-433 Dues and Memberships 28,326.74 30,000.00 25,776.30 4,223.70 14.08%30,000.00 0.00 ECW,Metro Cities,NWHHSC,Community Media,LMC,I94 Chamber, Home Free E 100-41900-700 Transfers 0.00 35,000.00 0.00 35,000.00 100.00%35,000.00 0.00 E 100-41900-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 111,105.79$ 139,400.00$ 101,701.55$ 140,926.00$ 1,526.00$ Planning & Zoning E 100-41910-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)3,394.26 1,000.00 523.18 476.82 47.68%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41910-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)44,691.45 50,000.00 50,573.99 -573.99 -1.15%55,000.00 5,000.00 Sign Ordinance 48,085.71$ 51,000.00$ 51,097.17$ 56,000.00$ 5,000.00$ Code Enforcement E 100-41920-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)50,605.24 53,186.00 43,349.90 9,836.10 18.49%53,186.00 0.00 E 100-41920-110 Overtime 0.00 1,000.00 191.78 808.22 80.82%500.00 -500.00 E 100-41920-121 PERA 3,685.98 3,928.00 3,265.62 662.38 16.86%3,928.00 0.00 E 100-41920-122 FICA 3,505.23 3,360.00 2,982.41 377.59 11.24%3,360.00 0.00 E 100-41920-126 Medicare 819.80 786.00 697.45 88.55 11.27%786.00 0.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2015 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND OCTOBER 31, 2015 8a. 3 of 5 Account Description 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS E 100-41920-131 Employer Paid Health 7,233.72 16,387.00 6,375.30 10,011.70 61.10%8,000.00 -8,387.00 E 100-41920-208 Training and Instruction 525.00 750.00 0.00 750.00 100.00%750.00 0.00 E 100-41920-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)649.53 1,000.00 592.57 407.43 40.74%1,000.00 0.00 E 100-41920-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 477.00 417.00 506.00 -89.00 -21.34%506.00 89.00 E 100-41920-417 Uniforms 250.00 250.00 250.00 0.00 0.00%250.00 0.00 E 100-41920-433 Dues and Memberships 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00%100.00 0.00 67,751.50$ 81,164.00$ 58,211.03$ 72,366.00$ (8,798.00)$ City Hall Operations E 100-41941-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)2,553.85 3,000.00 2,917.27 82.73 2.76%3,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-201 Postage/Shipping 2,339.08 3,000.00 1,832.87 1,167.13 38.90%3,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-207 Computer Supplies 2,161.86 3,000.00 1,522.17 1,477.83 49.26%3,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)12,442.72 15,000.00 9,548.75 5,451.25 36.34%15,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)8,039.19 9,000.00 7,296.48 1,703.52 18.93%9,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-321 Telephone 2,068.53 3,000.00 1,538.52 1,461.48 48.72%2,500.00 -500.00 E 100-41941-352 General Notices and Pub Info 951.97 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00%0.00 -2,000.00 E 100-41941-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 100.00%0.00 -25.00 E 100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)15,561.47 15,500.00 9,165.95 6,334.05 40.86%15,500.00 0.00 E 100-41941-400 Repairs & Maint Cont (GENERAL)10,174.51 12,000.00 6,328.53 5,671.47 47.26%12,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-430 Misc. Banking Charge 281.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-520 Buildings and Structures 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 100.00%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-41941-530 Improvements Other Than Bldg 3,451.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 E 100-41941-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 1,522.01 0.00 -520.82 520.82 0.00%0.00 0.00 61,547.35$ 70,525.00$ 39,629.72$ 68,000.00$ (2,525.00)$ IT (Info Technology) E 100-41951-207 Computer Supplies 10,875.48 22,757.00 21,988.96 768.04 3.37%22,757.00 0.00 E 100-41951-210 Operating Supplies 2,370.87 1,500.00 867.69 632.31 42.15%1,500.00 0.00 E 100-41951-300 Professional Srvs 7,197.50 13,100.00 16,808.70 -3,708.70 -28.31%19,000.00 5,900.00 JOTS contract E 100-41951-530 Improvements Other Than Bldg 0.00 6,500.00 0.00 6,500.00 100.00%6,500.00 0.00 20,443.85$ 43,857.00$ 39,665.35$ 49,757.00$ 5,900.00$ Police E 100-42100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)541,384.92 540,766.00 401,578.64 139,187.36 25.74%518,000.00 -22,766.00 E 100-42100-110 Overtime 12,596.03 9,500.00 11,929.27 -2,429.27 -25.57%14,500.00 5,000.00 E 100-42100-111 Overtime Events/Grants 11,722.67 10,000.00 3,392.88 6,607.12 66.07%7,000.00 -3,000.00 Pass thru revenue 100-42100-33620, 100-42100-34201 E 100-42100-121 PERA 79,514.31 90,492.00 60,179.57 30,312.43 33.50%85,658.00 -4,834.00 E 100-42100-126 Medicare 8,178.10 8,100.00 5,642.99 2,457.01 30.33%8,000.00 -100.00 E 100-42100-131 Employer Paid Health 99,126.33 111,823.00 84,570.14 27,252.86 24.37%112,500.00 677.00 E 100-42100-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)5,231.96 5,000.00 3,638.06 1,361.94 27.24%5,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-201 Postage/Shipping 413.64 250.00 342.07 -92.07 -36.83%400.00 150.00 E 100-42100-208 Training and Instruction 9,680.00 11,600.00 10,079.02 1,520.98 13.11%11,600.00 0.00 E 100-42100-209 Police Reserves 1,010.08 3,500.00 1,599.94 1,900.06 54.29%3,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)3,436.69 4,000.00 2,710.06 1,289.94 32.25%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-212 Motor Fuels 22,874.79 37,000.00 12,150.34 24,849.66 67.16%37,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)7,241.49 8,000.00 4,380.08 3,619.92 45.25%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-223 Building Repair Supplies 4,431.81 3,000.00 1,491.99 1,508.01 50.27%3,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)40.00 250.00 1,753.10 -1,503.10 -601.24%1,755.00 1,505.00 E 100-42100-301 Prisoner 5,842.63 8,000.00 1,095.21 6,904.79 86.31%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-304 Legal Fees 18,894.24 27,500.00 18,093.10 9,406.90 34.21%27,500.00 0.00 E 100-42100-321 Telephone 7,954.99 7,200.00 5,097.92 2,102.08 29.20%7,200.00 0.00 E 100-42100-323 Radio Units 13,920.01 15,300.00 9,139.20 6,160.80 40.27%15,300.00 0.00 E 100-42100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 19,201.00 26,516.00 24,916.00 1,600.00 6.03%24,916.00 -1,600.00 E 100-42100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)4,493.08 4,000.00 3,017.51 982.49 24.56%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-42100-417 Uniforms 11,131.75 9,960.00 6,954.85 3,005.15 30.17%9,960.00 0.00 E 100-42100-433 Dues and Memberships 1,145.00 1,200.00 1,555.00 -355.00 -29.58%1,555.00 355.00 E 100-42100-810 Refunds/Reimbursements -33,746.74 0.00 -36,919.97 36,919.97 0.00%0.00 0.00 855,718.78$ 942,957.00$ 638,386.97$ 918,344.00$ (24,613.00)$ Part Time Officers E 100-42101-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)84,582.30 78,100.00 104,440.60 -26,340.60 -33.73%126,500.00 48,400.00 E 100-42101-111 Overtime Events/Grants 3,872.40 5,000.00 12,347.50 -7,347.50 -146.95%13,000.00 8,000.00 Contractural events/Safe and Sober events. Budgeted 100-42100-111 E 100-42101-121 PERA 1,534.12 2,100.00 3,879.42 -1,779.42 -84.73%4,680.00 2,580.00 E 100-42101-122 FICA 4,862.18 4,842.00 5,756.13 -914.13 -18.88%6,900.00 2,058.00 E 100-42101-126 Medicare 1,282.59 1,132.00 1,693.46 -561.46 -49.60%2,040.00 908.00 E 100-42101-140 Unemployment Comp (GENERAL)0.00 0.00 3,101.84 0.00 0.00%3,102.00 3,102.00 96,133.59$ 91,174.00$ 131,218.95$ 156,222.00$ 65,048.00$ Police Admin E 100-42102-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)45,193.63 47,507.00 38,703.68 8,803.32 18.53%47,507.00 0.00 E 100-42102-110 Overtime 0.00 500.00 333.89 166.11 33.22%500.00 0.00 E 100-42102-121 PERA 3,280.02 3,601.00 2,927.81 673.19 18.69%3,601.00 0.00 E 100-42102-122 FICA 3,080.76 2,976.00 2,606.60 369.40 12.41%2,976.00 0.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2015 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND OCTOBER 31, 2015 8a. 4 of 5 Account Description 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS E 100-42102-126 Medicare 720.50 696.00 609.60 86.40 12.41%696.00 0.00 E 100-42102-131 Employer Paid Health 7,182.76 16,387.00 5,395.15 10,991.85 67.08%7,000.00 -9,387.00 59,457.67$ 71,667.00$ 50,576.73$ 62,280.00$ (9,387.00)$ Fire E 100-42200-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)240,222.17 275,895.00 236,709.55 39,185.45$ 14.20%275,895.00 0.00 240,222.17$ 275,895.00$ 236,709.55$ -$ 275,895.00$ -$ Building Inspection E 100-42400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)42,939.33 74,000.00 9,795.17 64,204.83 86.76%105,000.00 31,000.00 E 100-42400-437 Surcharges 3,753.81 11,000.00 8,020.91 2,979.09 27.08%12,000.00 1,000.00 46,693.14$ 85,000.00$ 17,816.08$ 117,000.00$ 32,000.00$ Public Works E 100-43100-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)281,532.54 283,606.00 226,361.26 57,244.74 20.18%283,606.00 0.00 E 100-43100-110 Overtime 27,201.59 20,000.00 12,161.97 7,838.03 39.19%20,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-121 PERA 21,519.38 22,011.00 17,738.13 4,272.87 19.41%22,011.00 0.00 E 100-43100-122 FICA 17,934.14 18,824.00 13,424.60 5,399.40 28.68%18,824.00 0.00 E 100-43100-126 Medicare 4,194.22 4,402.00 3,139.61 1,262.39 28.68%4,402.00 0.00 E 100-43100-131 Employer Paid Health 74,088.77 78,656.00 53,313.35 25,342.65 32.22%70,000.00 -8,656.00 E 100-43100-208 Training and Instruction 1,400.00 4,000.00 2,200.00 1,800.00 45.00%3,000.00 -1,000.00 E 100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)27,981.53 25,000.00 20,832.44 4,167.56 16.67%25,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-212 Motor Fuels 43,342.51 40,000.00 19,098.79 20,901.21 52.25%40,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)17,344.22 25,000.00 13,716.38 11,283.62 45.13%25,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-222 Seal Coating 51,554.71 60,000.00 55,659.75 4,340.25 7.23%55,700.00 -4,300.00 E 100-43100-223 Building Repair Supplies 6,336.50 4,500.00 3,083.64 1,416.36 31.47%4,500.00 0.00 E 100-43100-225 Landscape/Ditch Materials 10,711.09 10,000.00 2,129.53 7,870.47 78.70%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials 5,852.30 6,000.00 49.54 5,950.46 99.17%6,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-227 Crack Filling 806.78 10,000.00 8,880.00 1,120.00 11.20%8,880.00 -1,120.00 E 100-43100-228 Dust Control 114,305.47 110,000.00 107,768.21 2,231.79 2.03%107,768.00 -2,232.00 E 100-43100-229 Culverts 4,544.18 10,000.00 793.93 9,206.07 92.06%10,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-232 Gravel 127,333.32 130,000.00 108,280.96 21,719.04 16.71%116,000.00 -14,000.00 E 100-43100-233 Asphalt Maint/Patching 128,334.88 130,000.00 147,566.19 -17,566.19 -13.51%147,567.00 17,567.00 E 100-43100-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)2,100.00 2,100.00 2,126.85 -26.85 -1.28%2,127.00 27.00 E 100-43100-321 Telephone 7,379.43 8,000.00 6,038.37 1,961.63 24.52%8,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 14,706.00 19,364.00 18,873.00 491.00 2.54%18,873.00 -491.00 E 100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)26,562.46 30,000.00 12,216.33 17,783.67 59.28%20,000.00 -10,000.00 E 100-43100-381 Street/Signal Lights 3,676.08 4,000.00 1,804.85 2,195.15 54.88%4,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-417 Uniforms 6,348.73 7,000.00 4,124.90 2,875.10 41.07%7,000.00 0.00 E 100-43100-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 312.75 0.00 585.25 -585.25 0.00%0.00 0.00 1,027,403.58$ 1,062,463.00$ 861,967.83$ 1,038,258.00$ (24,205.00)$ Ice & Snow Removal E 100-43125-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)32,904.22$ 30,000.00$ 47,537.04$ (17,537.04)$ -58.46%47,537.00$ 17,537.00$ Engineeering E 100-43170-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)41,750.57$ 45,000.00$ 26,233.80$ 18,766.20$ 41.70%45,000.00$ -$ Recycling E 100-43232-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)1,025.21 1,000.00 3,032.62 -2,032.62 -203.26%3,033.00 2,033.00 E 100-43232-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)69,722.32 69,000.00 51,805.50 17,194.50 24.92%69,000.00 0.00 70,747.53$ 70,000.00$ 54,838.12$ 72,033.00$ 2,033.00$ Parks E 100-45200-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)23,182.26 36,788.00 23,830.39 12,957.61 35.22%26,000.00 -10,788.00 E 100-45200-110 Overtime 727.50 0.00 375.00 -375.00 0.00%375.00 375.00 E 100-45200-122 FICA 1,482.42 2,281.00 1,500.77 780.23 34.21%1,600.00 -681.00 E 100-45200-126 Medicare 346.71 533.00 350.98 182.02 34.15%400.00 -133.00 E 100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)8,789.93 15,000.00 8,622.99 6,377.01 42.51%15,000.00 0.00 E 100-45200-221 Maintenance Projects 11,002.27 15,000.00 13,108.19 1,891.81 12.61%15,000.00 0.00 $5,300 donation 100-45200-36230 E 100-45200-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)400.00 0.00 470.26 -470.26 0.00%470.00 470.00 E 100-45200-321 Telephone 609.13 700.00 483.31 216.69 30.96%700.00 0.00 E 100-45200-364 Worker's Comp Insurance 2,556.00 1,957.00 2,053.00 -96.00 -4.91%2,053.00 96.00 E 100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)4,503.00 8,000.00 3,663.70 4,336.30 54.20%5,000.00 -3,000.00 E 100-45200-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs 37,302.30 37,302.00 38,315.85 -1,013.85 -2.72%38,316.00 1,014.00 NW Trails Grant E 100-45200-810 Refunds/Reimbursements 145.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 91,046.75$ 117,561.00$ 92,774.44$ 104,914.00$ (12,647.00)$ Transfers to/from Other Funds E 100-49360-720 Operating Transfers 244,277.85 - - 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00 #244,277.85$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Expense 3,534,687$ 3,610,091$ 2,808,146$ 3,684,646$ 74,555$ CITY OF CORCORAN 2015 PERFORMANCE REPORT - GENERAL FUND OCTOBER 31, 2015 8a. 5 of 5 Account Description 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual Amount Remaining % Remaining Year End Forecast Budget vs YEF COMMENTS GENERAL FUND TOTALS Total Revenue 3,483,285$ 3,610,091$ 2,245,763$ 3,744,670$ 134,579$ Total Expense 3,534,687$ 3,610,091$ 2,808,146$ 3,684,646$ 74,555$ Total Revenue - Total Expense (51,403)$ -$ (562,383)$ 60,024$ -$ STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8b. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Community Advisory Team Update Action Required: None – Informational Summary: The Community Advisory Team (CAT) continues to meet in order to proceed with the Southeast District Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines Update. Most recently the group met on Monday, October 26th. The work included reviewing the results of the October 13th community workshop, drafting a vision statement with objectives for the area, refining boundaries of the southeast district and downtown, and reviewing transportation priorities. The next meeting of the CAT is scheduled for Monday, November 30th at 5:30 pm at City Hall. Financial/Budget: The work of the CAT is funded through a $37,500 grant from Hennepin County. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Options: N/A Page 2 Recommendation: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: November 4, 2015 for the November 12, 2015 City Council Meeting RE: Request for City-Initiated Street Right-of-Way and Easement Vacation for East Commerce Street (city file no. 15-020) 60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: N\A 1. Application Request The owners of Lawn King at 7555 County Road 116 are considering a sale of the property and title work revealed that the right-of-way for East Commerce Street has not been vacated. The applicant has requested that the City initiate this vacation. 2. Background As part of the Countryside Plaza 2nd Addition, the right-of-way for East Commerce Street was dedicated. In 1987, it appears that there was some discussion about vacating this portion of the unimproved street right-of-way and the adjacent 10-foot drainage and utility easements. The owner of Lawn King indicates that the vacation was to occur, but has no record of a council action or resolution. Deputy Clerk Heinecke searched the City files and found no record of the vacation in the resolution index for the years 1980 thru 2000. Hennepin County records show that the right-of-way still exists. While staff believes that it was the intent of the landowner and City to vacate the right-of-way, there is no record that the vacation actually occurred. Therefore, staff recommends that the City initiate the vacation as a city project. 3. Recommendation Direct staff to schedule a public hearing for December 10th to consider vacation of the street and easements related to East Commerce Street as a city-initiated project and send the required public hearing notices. Attachments 1. Graphics showing vacation area Agenda Item 9a. 2030 FutureLand Use Plan 4 100 0 100 200 30050 Feet 2030 Comprehensive Plan Figure 8 Area to be vacated Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Residential High Density Residential Rural Service/Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Light Industrial Public/Semi-Public Parks/Open Space Golf Course Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration) Open Water City Limit Staging Boundaries 2014_PublicWorks *The Future Land Use plan depicts the location and intensity of future development through a variety of land use types. This plan is intended to guide future development however the City has discretion to amend (with Metropolitan Council approval) the plan in response to landowner/ developer requests or response to other system plans. Updated August 2015Adopted June 2011 City ofCORCORAN Co u n t y R o a d 1 1 6 County Road 10 75th Avenue N Area to be vacated. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10a. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: City Council Compensation Action Required: Direction Summary: At the September 24, 2015 City Council meeting, staff presented City Council compensation information from adjacent and similar communities. The Council requested additional information on budget size and tax capacity. The information is presented again below with the additional requested information. City Position Annual Salary General Fund Budget (2015) Gross Tax Capacity Corcoran Mayor $1,800 $4,050,818 $7,242,949 Council $1,200 Medina Mayor $4,250 $4,119,507 $16,818,294 Council $3,000 Loretto Mayor $2,400 $638,881 Council $2,000 Greenfield Mayor $4,800 $1,340,570 $4,093,788 Council $3,600 Hanover Mayor $1,650 $1,537,063 $676,899 Council $1,250 Rogers Mayor $4,200 $6,987,249 $21,418,836 Council $3,600 Dayton Mayor $6,396 $2,944,385 $5,572,393 Council $5,117 Maple Grove Mayor $15,000 $36,150,200 $91,303,884 Council $13,000 Plymouth Mayor $14,479 $33,508,241 $117,752,745 Council $10,484 Average Mayor $6,666 Council $5,250 Staff further looked into the average City Council compensation of the seven county metro area for communities between 4,000 – 7,000 in population. After removing two outliers (lowest and highest), the following average City Council salary was found: • Mayor: $4,620 • Councilmember: $3,641 The data clearly show that Corcoran’s Councilmembers are lower paid than our surrounding communities and similar sized cities. Page 2 Staff estimated a fairly conservative/minimal time commitment of a Councilmember to be 160 hours per year. That would make the hourly wage for members as follows: • Mayor: $11.25/hour • Councilmember: $7.50/hour It should be noted that most Councilmembers put in significantly more hours than shown above. Staff requests direction from the City Council on further action regarding City Council compensation. Council salaries are set by ordinance which takes effect following the next succeeding regular election. This means that salaries could next increase in 2017. The last salary increase took place in 2001. Financial/Budget: Any increase in salary would increase the budget. The increase would not take place at the earliest until 2017. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Options: 1) Direct staff to draft an ordinance increasing City Council compensation. 2) Direct staff to take no further action. Recommendation: The data clearly show that the Corcoran City Councilmembers are underpaid as compared to their neighboring and similar sized communities. If the Council recommends a salary increase staff recommends continuing the “per month” approach. Council Action: Consider a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance increasing City Council compensation. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10b. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: City Council Email Addresses Action Required: Direction Summary: At the October 22, 2015 City Council meeting, staff presented options for handling email correspondence with City Councilmembers. Discussion on the topic resulted in additional questions and staff was directed to provide further information at the next meeting. The following section attempts to answer the questions brought up at the meeting and incorporate other issues related to the topic: • How would a Councilmember access the email account? o If at a personal computer or laptop the Councilmember would utilize an Outlook Web App (OWA) using a link to login to the account. o If on a table or phone, a free app would need to be installed on the device. o Both could be used interchangeably. • What if a Councilmember already has an outlook app on their tablet or phone? o They could add an additional account in Outlook. A consultant the City works with for example has nine separate accounts all flowing into Outlook and each are managed separately with their own signature as well. • How will spam be filtered? o Corcoran has a very good system for filtering out spam and viruses. • What are the costs associated with a city email account? o There are costs estimated at $200 annually for the account and additional costs as necessary if user issues arise. • What are the advantages to using an official city email account? o All electronic correspondence by and between city council members that relates to city business is considered government data and may be subject to a data practices request. This includes correspondence received from a constituent relating to any legislative or quasi-judicial decision. o Official city e-mail addresses are maintained on the City’s server, with regular back-ups, and supported by the IT contract. Archiving the emails would be in accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices rules. o An official city e-mail address ensures transparency, integrity and accountability. o Personal correspondence is not intermingled with official correspondence. o Outlook calendars could be setup where staff could input upcoming meetings or events. Page 2 • What are the disadvantages to using an official city e-mail account? o In the short term it would be an inconvenience to setup the accounts and learn a new system for checking email. • Should Commissioners also have city email accounts? o The issue is important for Councilmembers as they are the authoritative body. Commissioners are a recommending body and are less likely to be subject to issues related to email use. For that reason it is recommended not to have city email accounts for Commissioners. It is requested that the Council provide direction to staff on whether or not to proceed forward with creating city email accounts for Councilmembers. Financial/Budget: Creating email addresses for City Councilmembers has a minimal cost that is not anticipated to exceed $200. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. Options: 1. Direct staff to make no changes in regards to email communication. 2. Direct staff to initiate City email addresses for Councilmembers. Recommendation: Staff recommends an official city email address should be created for and used by Council for correspondence. Council Action: Direct staff on whether changes should be made to email correspondence. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10c. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Hazardous Property Update – 20112 County Road 10 Action Required: Direction Summary: In May 2015 the City Council authorized staff to pursue funds from Hennepin County to evaluate the issues associated with the hazardous property at 20112 County Road 10. Staff was successful in securing funds and the evaluation has been completed. The final step is to mitigate the issue through removal of the hazardous structure. After speaking with Hennepin County, additional funds would be available to remove the hazardous property only if the property was in the possession of the City of Corcoran. This means that the City must now choose between the following options: • Abandon the project: o Take no further action and leave the structure as is. • Purchase the property and abate the hazardous structure: o The City would need to negotiate the purchase of the property from the owner and coordinate the removal of the structure with Hennepin County. • Enforce the order to raze and remove the building: o Direct staff to enforce the order to raze and remove the building reviewed in 2012 and not enforced for various reasons. This would require the property owner to remove the building. If the property owner did not remove the building, the City would remove the building and assess the costs to the property. Financial/Budget: Depending on the action chosen there are various financial impacts: • Abandon the project: o No direct short-term financial impact • Purchase the property and abate the hazardous structure: o Tax Increment Funds have been earmarked for this purpose by a previous City Council. A previous appraisal opinion estimated the value to be $75,000 after deducting the cost of removal. The new evaluation of the site would likely change that valuation. • Enforce the order to raze and remove the building: o Minor costs would be incurred to initially enforce the order to raze. If not completed by the homeowner the City would complete the work which could range from $20,000 - $30,000 and would be assessed to the property. Page 2 Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Options: 1) Abandon the project. 2) Direct staff to begin the process to purchase the property. 3) Direct staff to enforce the order to raze and remove the building. 4) Send back to staff for further review. Recommendation: Staff recommends that action is taken on the property through option two or option three presented above. Council Action: Direct staff on further action in regards to the project. Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11a. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Jessica Beise & Matt Gottschalk Topic: Ordinance Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants Action Required: Direction Summary: During the summer months of 2015, staff received concerns from residents on solicitors in our area. Through this experience, staff realized that the City does not have rules established related to this activity. An ordinance would need to be created to regulate peddler, solicitor, and transient merchant activities. Cities are granted authority to regulate these activities within the City (Minn. Stat. 412.221, subd. 19). Many of cities including of Medina, Plymouth, Maple Grove and Wayzata all have ordinances regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchant. To smooth the ordinance creation process staff needs general direction on topics within the ordinance. Staff has made general recommendations on those topics below. Staff would ask for discussion and feedback on the recommendations and general direction from the Council on how to proceed. Inclusions Food Trucks – Include language to regulate food trucks within the City. Exemptions Food Stands/Farmers Markets–Include language to exempt food stands and farmers markets. Corcoran Based Businesses – Include language to exempt fee for Corcoran based businesses. Signage Signage for Residents – Provide a standard sign for “No Solicitors Allowed”. As there are major differences in each of these categories and how we can regulate each, staff has included a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities. Financial/Budget: The City would likely charge a fee in connection with the staff time involved in this process. Staff would recommend $100 per person for a one month license and Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. Page 2 FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Options: 1) Provide feedback to staff on their recommendations on an ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. 2) Decline to implement an ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. 3) Send back to staff for further review. Recommendation: Provide feedback on staff recommendations on an ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants and direct staff to work with the City Attorney to draft an ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. Council Action: Direct staff on which direction to proceed. Attachments: 1) Informational Memo - Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors, and Transient Merchants INFORMATION M EMO Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Describes possible ways cities can regulate peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Learn how to differentiate between the persons and practices in order to avoid legal challenges. Understand the meaning of reasonable regulations that do not violate any rights protected by the state or federal constitutions. Contains easy-to-use charts and links to a sample ordinance. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Why regulate peddlers, solicitors or transient merchants Peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants can provide benefits and challenges to cities and their residents. They provide an opportunity to bring interested parties (such as buyers and sellers, or donors and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations) together. However, they can also cause problems not typically associated with permanently established local businesses. Bad experiences can lead disgruntled home and business owners to contact their local officials demanding relief, including: • Protection from fraud, scam artists, and other unwanted intrusions. • Prevention of crimes and unlawful activities. • A direct city response to their uneasiness and need for safety in the community. Minnesota cities have the authority, both specifically within the state statutes and under their general police powers, to regulate the activities of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. However, this authority is not absolute. Regulations must be “reasonable” and not violate any rights protected by the state or federal constitutions. II. Classifications State and local governments have used different terms to describe individuals who travel city-to-city or door-to-door offering products and services for sale, or expressing ideological and religious beliefs. Among the most commonly used names for those participating in these general practices include: See Part II-section A Peddlers. See Part II-section B Solicitors and canvassers. See Part II-section C Transient merchants. • Peddlers. • Solicitors. • Transient merchants. • Hawkers. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 2/12/2014 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2014 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: • Canvassers. • Advocates. • Itinerant vendors. • Hucksters. • Proselytizers. • Door-to-door salespersons. • Drummers. • Missionaries. See LMC sample ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. Such terms (and others) are generally defined by state statute or city ordinance. Language is often used interchangeably, but may be applied differently depending on the relevant jurisdiction involved. Despite the use of these various terms for generally similar practices, there are fundamental differences in actual operations that affect a local government’s ability to regulate a particular type of activity. A. Peddlers City of St. Paul v. Briggs, 85 Minn. 290, 88 N.W. 984 (1902). A peddler is generally described as someone who: • Travels about from place to place with no fixed place of business. • Carries the actual merchandise offered for sale, not merely samples of such products. • Sells the merchandise at the time it is offered for sale. • Delivers the merchandise at the time the sale is consummated. • Sells to the ultimate consumer and not to a retail establishment for an expected resale of the merchandise. Also commonly known as hawkers, peddlers carry the actual products offered for sale from place to place. See Part V-Local regulations. Cities generally have the authority to either license or register peddlers who wish to operate within the city’s jurisdiction. See Part IV-section C Commerce Clause. See Part II-section B Solicitors and canvassers. The licensing or regulation of peddlers usually does not raise constitutional concerns under the Commerce Clause because both product delivery and payment occur during the initial interaction. With peddling, goods are not typically shipped into the local jurisdiction for delivery at a later date and time. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: B. Solicitors and canvassers Excelsior Baking Co. v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 188 (1956). See Edwards v. City of Reno, 103 Nev. 347, 742 P.2d 486 (1987). A solicitor also engages in door-to-door activities. However, unlike a peddler, a merchant solicitor goes from place to place and only obtains orders for goods or services that will be delivered or performed at a later date. Solicitors do not carry the merchandise they are offering for sale with them. Most often, a solicitor will use samples, or carry catalogues illustrating the goods or services available. All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Housing Cmtys. Income Fund, 732 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 2007). Although this memo often uses the terms “solicitors” and “solicitation” interchangeably with “canvassers” and “canvassing,” canvassing refers to the practice of going from location to location with the primary purpose of furthering religious, social, or political advocacy. Unlike solicitors, financial profit is not the canvassers’ primary motivation. A canvasser (sometimes known as an advocate) may: • Ask for signatures on a petition. • Request support for a political candidate or position. • Espouse religious beliefs or causes. • Seek donations, organization memberships, or other financial support for their religious, social, or political organizations. • Take orders for goods, to be delivered at a later time, in order to raise money for a non-profit or other charitable organization’s operations. See Part IV-Constitutional implications. The regulation of these types of door-to-door advocates involves many basic constitutional rights, including a canvasser’s freedom of speech and possibly freedom of religion, a solicitor’s Commerce Clause protections, and a homeowner’s privacy and property rights. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Although statutory cities are specifically provided the power to “restrain or license and regulate” solicitors and canvassers (most home rule charter cities have similar language within their charters), most legal authorities suggest their authority is actually more limited. See Part IV-section C Commerce Clause. A.G. Op. 59a-32 (Jan. 13, 1961). See Part V-section G Registration. The major restriction on local licensing of solicitors is the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Minnesota attorney general has advised that because states are prohibited from interfering with interstate commerce, local governments cannot collect license fees from solicitors who take orders in one state for goods to be delivered in the future from another state. In contrast, a municipal ordinance requiring all solicitors, including interstate merchants, to simply register with local authorities before engaging in their business activities may be a reasonable local regulation of interstate commerce. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: See Part IV-section A Freedom of speech. And while most canvassing activities do not raise concerns under the commerce clause, these activities likely raise protections under the First Amendment. If the activity is pure advocacy (the expression of one’s views or religious principles), a local unit of government cannot impose a prior restraint, such as obtaining a license or registration before engaging in the activity. Unfortunately, it is less clear what regulations, if any, may be enacted when the canvassing involves the sale of goods and services that will be provided at a later date. So, while the city can license peddlers and transient merchants, it probably should not license most solicitors or canvassers. C. Transient merchants A transient merchant is someone who demonstrates the traits of both a peddler and the typical permanent business. Transient merchants are regulated under state law. Minn. Stat. § 329.099. A transient merchant is: • Any person, individual, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation. • That sells goods, wares, or merchandise. • From a vehicle, portable shelter, vacant building, structure, lot, or railroad car. • With the intent to remain in business at any one location for a limited period of time, usually no more than a few weeks. Minn. Stat. § 329.099. Pursuant to state statute, a “transient merchant” does not include the seller or exhibitor in a firearms collection show involving two or more sellers or exhibitors. Minn. Stat. § 329.10. Minn. Stat. § 329.11. Transient merchants are not allowed to begin their business operations without first applying for and obtaining a county-issued license. (In practice, however, a county may not be issuing such licenses.) The license application will include: • The applicant’s name. • The proposed place of business. • The type or manner of business to be conducted. • How long the business will operate at that location. Minn. Stat. § 329.11. A transient merchant pays a county license fee of $150 and provides a bond in an amount not less than $1,000, but no more than $3,000. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: The bond is conditioned on the merchant conforming to all laws relating to transient merchants, complying with all material oral or written statements and representations made in regard to merchandise offered for sale, as well as on the faithful performance of any warranties made with the merchandise. Minn. Stat. § 329.13. Minn. Stat. § 329.17. When goods are brought into the state by a nonresident and it is claimed that such stock is to be sold at reduced prices, it is considered prima facie (“on its face”) evidence that the person (partnership or corporation) selling those goods is a transient merchant. Anyone acting in violation of these requirements is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Minn. Stat. § 437.02. In addition, statutory and home rule charter cities have the specific authority to adopt ordinances to regulate, control, and license transient merchants, as well as provide criminal penalties for violating city regulations. State ex rel. Greenwood v. Nolan, 108 Minn. 170, 122 N.W. 255 (1909). State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). Licensing or other city ordinances regulating transient merchants must apply uniformly to all transient dealers regardless of residence, locale, or otherwise. 94 A.L.R. 1076. A volume of legal authority recognizes classifications based on the temporary nature of transient merchants as valid, and finds that it is proper to distinguish between temporary enterprises and permanently established businesses. D. Commercial vs. non-commercial In addition to categorizing conduct as peddling, soliciting, or transient merchant sales, these activities also need to be evaluated as to whether they are commercial or non-commercial in nature. See LMC information memo, Public Nuisances. Often, the action or conduct is a nuisance and possibly a violation of city ordinance. In reality, it is not that easy to define community concerns and tolerances. To illustrate the practical differences involved, consider: • The resident, unbothered when non-profits ring the doorbell selling candy bars, but infuriated when a vacuum salesperson comes calling. • The resident, who doesn’t mind the vacuum salesperson who maintains an office on Main Street, but doesn’t want to be disturbed by similar salespersons who live and work in another city, county, or state. • The resident who pretends to be out whenever a member of a particular religious group knocks on the door, just wanting to talk about their beliefs, but opens her door when the parish priest or pastor stops by seeking donations for the church’s latest initiative. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: These scenarios describe what seem to be very similar activities, which would seem to require the same manner of regulation. The community may, however, be tempted to regulate certain groups and organizations in a more stringent manner simply because they consider those groups distasteful. See Part IV-Constitutional implications. The particular entity involved (business, church, political candidate or party, or local charity), the activity (the sale of goods or services, political campaigning, or preaching), and purpose behind that activity (for-profit or merely incidental to non-profit’s purpose), are all relevant when determining whether local regulations apply. Cities need to be careful that their regulations are applied evenly with the appropriate category or grouping. III. Local authority Handbook, Chapter 11. Handbook, Chapter 12. Cities, counties, and other units of local government have substantial regulatory powers. Although a local government’s licensing and regulatory authority is necessary to promote and protect the general welfare, they can often provoke conflicts between public and private interests. See Part IV-Constitutional implications. Local regulations may also impact an individual’s constitutional rights. Since resolving these clashes is often a difficult task, the proper application of the city’s licensing and regulatory authority is critical. A. Scope of authority Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Minn. Stat. § 437.02. Despite specific statutory authority authorizing the regulation (or prohibition) of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, and years of judicial interpretation, there is some uncertainty about the actual scope of a city’s authority to license or regulate. While it is fairly clear cities cannot ban certain classes of transient activities, it is far from clear how far their regulations may go. B. Regulations—in general Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 122 S. Ct. 2080 (2002). See Part III-section C Time, place, and manner. The government’s interest in regulating door-to-door and transient merchant activities is generally two-fold: 1) To ensure residents’ privacy rights in their homes; and 2) To protect residents from fraud and other crimes. Regulations take different forms, from elaborate licensing schemes, to more simple requirements such as registering with the police department and agreeing to abide by time, place, and manner restrictions. State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 (1907). New Jersey Good Humor, Inc., v. Bd. Of Comm’rs, 11 A.2d 113 (N.J. 1940). With few exceptions, city regulations should seek to control only the nuisance aspects of a particular type of business, not outlaw the activity completely. However, if certain businesses involve a fraudulent scheme designed to trap the unsuspecting citizen, a city may go as far as a prohibition, though that may be difficult to prove. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. 2746 (1989). Cities need to be mindful that their regulations need to be: • Content neutral. (A city generally cannot target or treat individuals differently because of who they are or for their particular message). • Narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest. • Open for alternative methods for the same or similar communications to occur. C. Time, place, and manner Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. 2746 (1989). State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 (1907). Cities have some discretion in regulating the time, place, and manner in which peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants operate. If a restriction is not content-based, a city may impose reasonable restrictions. The city’s discretion is not, however, absolute. Bd. of Trs. Of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 3028 (1989). Cities need to consider a restriction’s general effect and be able to demonstrate a “reasonable fit” between the government’s end (i.e., to preserve privacy in one’s home; prevent fraud, theft, or other crimes) and the means that they have decided to use to accomplished those goals (i.e., background checks, registration, or bonding). Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Mentor-on-the-Lake, 272 F. Supp. 2d 671 (N.D. Ohio 2003). ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1983). Local restrictions are generally reviewed by the courts using a test that has been defined as intermediate scrutiny (Is an important governmental interest furthered substantially by the regulation used?). However if the restriction is not content neutral (i.e., only applies to a particular group or specific activity), it will be subject to a more stringent test known as strict scrutiny (Is there a compelling governmental interest? Is the regulation narrowly tailored to achieve that interest? Is that regulation the least restrictive way possible to accomplish that goal?). In providing time, place, or manner restrictions, the local authority recognizes that sometimes it is the method, and not the activity itself, that will affect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. By providing guidelines on acceptable methods, the needs of residents and merchants (or canvassers) can often be accommodated. 1. Time Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Mentor-on-the-Lake, 272 F. Supp. 2d 671 (N.D. Ohio 2003). City of Watseka v. Illinois Pub. Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547 (7th Cir. 1986). ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1983). City regulations often include restrictions that limit the time during which door-to-door activities may occur. For instance, regulations often prohibit uninvited calls that are too early in the morning or too late at night. As with all regulations, time restrictions must be reasonable, affording peddlers and solicitors a reasonable period of time for their activities. Time restrictions should be content neutral (applying to all door-to-door calls and narrowly tailored to fit the city’s interests). League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: A city must be careful not to be so restrictive when establishing permissible hours that the average working person would never be home or available. 2. Place Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453 (1965). Cities can establish provisions that prohibit peddlers and transient merchants from conducting their operations at locations that would be harmful to the community. A common example of a place regulation would be reasonable location restrictions that prevent traffic hazards or interference with movement on streets and sidewalks. 3. Manner Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. 2746 (1989). Cities can also provide reasonable prohibitions on the manner or techniques used by peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Common examples of manner regulations would be to prohibit or restrict the use of: • Whistles. • Air horns. • Megaphones. • Amplifiers. • Other loud noise devices. • Flashing or strobe lights. • Other devices that may be used to attract attention to the merchant, yet would have a demonstrable negative impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 4. Alternative methods – door hangers U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 110 S. Ct. 3115 (1990). Not all transient merchant activities include face-to-face interactions. An example of “alternative” activities is leaving donation request forms, restaurant menus, or other order forms on a residence’s doorknob or on the windshield of a vehicle. If there is no actual contact with the homeowner, common concerns with solicitors and peddlers (invasion of privacy, fraud, or criminal activity) and the justifications for city regulations diminish. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). See Part III-section H Modified Green River ordinances. However, the use of door hangers or other leaflets may trigger a city’s authority in regard to regulating the amount of garbage accumulating on city streets and sidewalks. One remedy allows citizens to themselves indicate whether they are willing to entertain these merchants at their residences. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: D. Licensing—authority See Handbook, Chapter 11. See Part V-section C Applications – background checks. A license is a regulatory device used to ensure compliance with regulations governing a specific occupation, profession, commercial trade, or other activity. The authority to regulate includes the power to establish standards and minimum requirements for meeting those standards. Licensing is typically a formal process with an application, fee, and council or city administration determining whether the applicant meets all licensing requirements. Background checks are common. Licensing is an exercise of police power (protecting and promoting the public welfare). Cities have adequate authority for licensing as long as it is: • Constitutional. • Reasonable. • Not specifically pre-empted by state or federal regulations. Minn. Stat. § 329.10. Minn. Stat. § 329.17. It is unlawful for transient merchants to operate without first obtaining a county-issued license. Failure to obtain a county license, or violation of any licensing requirement, is a gross misdemeanor offense. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Minn. Stat. § 329.11. Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Minn. Stat. § 437.02. Minnesota cities have authority from statutes and from court decisions to regulate peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Statutory cities and counties have the express statutory authority to license and regulate transient merchants, including peddlers and solicitors. Home rule charter cities also have the express authority to regulate these activities (charters themselves often provide specific authority as well). When a county license is required, cities may regulate above and beyond the requirements for county licensure. E. Licensing—exceptions There are several particular trades or activities that are exempt from local licensing based upon the U.S. Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, state statute, or judicial decisions. 1. Farm products Minn. Const. art. XIII, § 7. The Minnesota Constitution prohibits the licensing of farmers selling the products cultivated from their own farms. This constitutional exemption would apply to individuals who go door-to-door in a manner typically associated with the normal operations of a peddler. This farm-product exemption also applies to transient merchant operations and prohibits local licensing requirements for those farmers who are operating roadside fruit or vegetable stands. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: State v. Hartmann¸ 700 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2005). The farm-product exception is limited to products “cultivated” at a farm or garden. In one case, sales of meat were found to be exempt from licensing because the meat was a product of the farm, but not necessary exempt from meat inspection requirements. State ex rel. Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 123 N.W. 408 (1909). This exception cannot be expanded to exempt all persons who make or produce what they are selling from the city’s licensing requirements. It would not be appropriate, for example, to require peddlers and transient merchants who sell industrially manufactured handbags to obtain a city license, but exempt anyone who goes door-to-door selling bags they produced themselves. 2. Other exemptions Minn. Stat. § 329.14. There are additional exemptions to local licensing requirements, including: Excelsior Baking Co. v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 188 (1956). • Initial contacts to establish delivery routes for perishables. • Businesses making deliveries on regular routes. • Delivery of newspapers. • Wholesalers making direct sales to retail establishments. • Sales made pursuant to invitation issued by an owner or legal occupant. • A seller or exhibitor in a firearms collection show involving two or more sellers or exhibitors. The general nature of these operations (occurring on a fixed schedule, possibly daily; generally upon occupant’s invitation), significantly reduces the chances that they will become nuisances, injuring the general public. F. Green River ordinances As an alternative to licensing, many municipalities across the country have adopted what is commonly referred to as a “Green River” ordinance, prohibiting the door-to-door activities of most transient salespersons. Town of Green River v. Fuller Brush Co., 65 F.2d 112, (10th Cir. 1933). Town of Green River v. Bunger, 50 Wyo. 52, 58 P.2d 456 (1936). Day v. Klein, 225 Miss. 191, 82 So.2d 831 (1955). The Green River approach (named after the city in which it was first used and upheld by the courts) makes it a nuisance to go onto private property and peddle or solicit orders for goods or merchandise, unless the owner or legal occupant extended an actual or implied invitation to the seller. This approach does not apply to soliciting the sale of personal services or to solicitations at places of business. Violations are misdemeanor offenses and punishable by a fine and possible imprisonment. 77 A.L.R.2d 1216. 35 A.L.R.2d 355. Other usual methods for seeking business remain. The sale of goods is not specifically prohibited, only a particular method or practice. For example, solicitors may still gain access to homes by appointments made by mail, telephone, or e-mail inquiry. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: 35 A.L.R.2d 355. However, some courts in other jurisdictions have invalidated Green River ordinances when they considered: • The prohibited conduct involves lawful businesses. • Many useful articles cannot be sold except through home solicitations. 77 A.L.R.2d 1216. These ordinances denounce and prohibit the habitual acts of these merchants; a single uninvited act of solicitation or peddling at a private residence may not be found to violate the intent of these ordinances. However, attempting to evade the ordinance by approaching a private residence, only asking for an invitation to come back later to sell or solicit an order for goods, has been found to be a prohibited practice. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’tt, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). It is doubtful that a Green River ordinance can prohibit constitutionally protected door-to-door advocacy. A common example of such a practice would be an individual engaged in religious-related sales, such as religious literature. G. Licensing vs. Green River State v. Northwest Airlines, 213 Minn. 395, 7 N.W.2d 691 (1942). Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S. Ct. 920 (1951). Project 80’s, Inc. v. City of Pocatello, 942 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1991). While licensing ordinances are a tested and legally sound method of regulation, Minnesota courts have never directly addressed the validity of a Green River ordinance (but there have been indirect indications that these ordinances are valid under the Minnesota Constitution). Although upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and never expressly overruled, subsequent federal courts had found Green River ordinances to be an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech (including commercial speech) and other state courts have struck down such ordinances for violating rights under state constitutions. H. Modified Green River ordinances There is an additional, alternative method of city action that both regulates the nuisance aspects prohibited by a Green River ordinance and recognizes the benefits of certain door-to-door activities. Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 63 S. Ct. 862 (1943). A modified version of the Green River ordinance authorizes homeowners to prohibit peddlers and solicitors by posting a sign indicating they do not want to be disturbed. It is a misdemeanor offense to violate that declaration. People v. Bohnke, 287 N.Y. 154, 38 N.E. 2d 478 (1941). This type of ordinance applies to solicitors engaged in interstate commerce, as well as to peddlers or solicitors engaging in the sale or distribution of religious materials, because the critical actor (the one creating the prohibition) is the individual property owner or tenant, not the city. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: Courts have consistently held that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to go freely onto private property for the purpose of any kind of sales or solicitations, irrespective of the owner or occupant’s wishes. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). The modified Green River approach, particularly when combined with some manner of city licensing, is probably the most effective means of controlling the problems associated with peddlers and solicitors. Despite concerns over the validity of the standard Green River ordinance, specifically when constitutional rights are involved, it appears more conclusive that an ordinance may prohibit peddling or soliciting when individuals post signs indicating they do not want to be disturbed by sales or solicitations. IV. Constitutional implications Many municipal regulations have been struck down for violating constitutional protections. Most often, challenges to city peddler, solicitor, or transient merchant regulations are based on alleged violations of: • Freedom of speech. • Equal protection. • Commerce Clause. • Freedom of religion. See Part IV-section A-2 Commercial speech & Part IV-section A-3 Non- commercial speech. Because concerns over these and other constitutional rights are often raised by local regulation of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, courts must balance the rights of these individuals against the government’s interests to protect the citizens’ rights to privacy, prevention of crimes, and avoidance of frauds. A court’s decision often hinges on whether the contested speech benefits commercial or noncommercial purposes. Attempts to regulate individuals going place-to-place, their primary purpose to exercise their constitutional rights, may be a losing battle. A. Freedom of speech U.S. Const. amend. I. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). The First Amendment provides that communications are generally protected from censorship by the government. Social, political, and religious door-to- door canvassing that does not involve the solicitation of money or the sale of goods (a commercial purpose) is among the most protected activities under the First Amendment. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976). State v. Century Camera, 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 1981). Commercial speech is also provided with limited protections; protections “commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values.” This allows for some governmental regulations that would not be permitted if noncommercial speech was involved. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: 1. Prior restraint A prior restraint is a government attempt, either through a total ban or as a consequence of local licensing, to suppress communications before they can reach the general public. Concerns with prior restraint are demonstrated by the situation where a government official is provided absolute discretion in granting or denying a permit and, ultimately, whether the speech is allowed to occur. Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement¸ 505 U.S. 123, 112 S. Ct. 2395 (1992). To avoid claims of unbridled restraint and violations of the individual’s (or organization’s) freedom of speech, the local ordinance must: • Contain narrow, objective, and definite standards used to guide the licensing authority. • Provide limits on the time within which the licensing authority has to make its determination. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S. Ct. 596 (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the lack of such basic requirements “evils that will not be tolerated.” 2. Commercial speech State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976). Commercial speech typically does no more than propose a business transaction. As distinguished from religious, political, or social speech, where the dialogue may include the sharing of a viewpoint on an issue, commercial forms of expression generally relate to economic interests. Limited First Amendment protections have been extended to speech that “does no more than propose a commercial transaction.” Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980). Regulations on commercial speech are subject to a four-part test: • Is the proposed activity protected by the First Amendment to the extent that it concerns lawful activity and is not misleading? The First Amendment does not protect false or misleading commercial speech. • Are the asserted governmental interests substantial? A local government’s interests in privacy, crime prevention, and fraud are usually considered sufficient “substantial interests.” • Does the regulation directly advance the asserted governmental interests? If the purpose of the regulation is to prohibit fraud, there must be a link between that regulation and the prevention of fraud, not mere happenstance. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: • Is the regulation not more extensive than necessary to serve those interests? While court decisions indicate use of the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s interest, the absolutely least severe restriction possible is not required. If the ordinance fails this four-part test, it is more likely a violation of the merchant’s freedom of speech. 3. Non-commercial speech Non-commercial speech occurs in many forms. Often, it is the exercise of First Amendment rights by sharing religious or political information during doorstep conversations or distributing door hangers, flyers, and other written materials. Cities generally cannot require all religious, social, or political solicitors to obtain a license or register when the primary purpose behind their activities is to share a viewpoint. Despite the ideological or constitutional differences between commercial and non-commercial conduct, many homeowners don’t value or draw such distinctions. A person who does not want to be disturbed by salespeople may also find charitable canvassing a nuisance. Additionally, some “non- commercial” speech is fraudulent or criminal in purpose. Cities have difficulties when non-commercial solicitors are, to some degree, also engaging in commercial activity (selling candy bars, raffle tickets, or religious publications). In the past, local regulations and the courts have examined specific conduct to determine if: • The activity is primarily commercial in nature and subject to local regulations on peddlers, solicitors, or transient merchants. • The sale is secondary to the expression of a belief or position and falls within constitutional protections and outside certain local regulations. 77 A.L.R.2d 1216. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). Local regulations have been upheld when they apply only to transactions of a commercial nature and distinguish, for example, the evangelist selling or taking orders for materials that support or further his beliefs. From a practical and conservative perspective, non-commercial advocacy is often peppered with some level of commercial activity. Often, despite the incidental commercial activities involved, the entire “speech” is generally protected. Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 108 S. Ct. 2667 (1988). Regulations that apply to non-commercial door-to-door solicitations must be narrowly drafted to meet the legitimate interests of the city and not significantly prohibit otherwise protected activities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: B. Equal protection U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. This protection is additionally reinforced under the Minnesota Constitution. A local government cannot generally favor one group over another. Equal protection concerns arise when: • Local regulations treat in-state (“locals”) different than out-of-state merchants. • City-based merchants are treated differently than other in-state businesspeople. • Within general definitions for peddlers, solicitors, or transient merchants, groups of merchants are distinguished from one another. • Local regulations specifically allow the door-to-door or transient sale of one type of product or service, but prohibit the similar sale of another. 112 A.L.R. 63. Kalra v. State of Minnesota, 580 F. Supp. 971 (D. Minn. 1983). State statutes or city ordinances that discriminate against non-residents by refusing to grant them a license (or grant licenses on different terms) are generally unconstitutional. The courts have indicated non-citizens also fall within the coverage of the equal protection clause. State ex rel. Greenwood v. Nolan, 108 Minn. 170, 122 N.W. 255 (1909). Minnesota courts invalidated a city ordinance that discriminated between resident and nonresident peddlers since such restrictions denied nonresidents the privileges enjoyed by resident citizens. 94 A.L.R. 1076. State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). Regulations that apply only to nonresidents are likely void. For example, an ordinance requiring a transient merchant from outside the county to post a bond was invalidated because it violated the non-resident’s equal protection rights. That court would not follow the assumption that salespersons living within the county were solvent and financially responsible, but individuals residing elsewhere would not satisfy a possible civil judgment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900 (1940). Cities should be able to provide for their community’s general welfare without invading an individual’s rights. Unless there is a clear, definable grounds for making a distinction (an almost certain adverse impact to the public), such divisions are not permissible. C. Commerce Clause U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. City of Waseca v. Braun, 206 Minn. 154, 288 N.W. 229 (1939). The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the exclusive authority to regulate trade between the states. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: This provision both: (1) grants the federal government a tremendous amount of authority over what would otherwise be local issues; and (2) limits what cities may do when their regulations might affect the movement of goods between states. The Commerce Clause substantially impacts the regulation of itinerant salespersons by local governments. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 114 S. Ct. 1677 (1994). Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 104 S. Ct. 3049 (1984). The Commerce Clause prohibits state and local laws that promote local economic protection. An ordinance may establish local protectionism because of either a discriminatory purpose or discriminatory effect. The U.S. Supreme Court has invalided regulations that: Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1870). • Required only nonresident merchants to obtain licenses. • Charged higher fees to nonresidents. • Prohibited merchants from using nonresidents as salespersons. These decisions are based in part upon the belief that the government may not prevent someone from traveling state-to-state to earn a living. Oregon Waste Sys. Inc. v. Dept. of Envtl. Quality of the State of Or., 511 U.S. 93, 114 S. Ct. 1345 (1994). State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). A local regulation is discriminatory if it provides different treatment to in- state and out-of-state economic interests, benefiting the former and burdening the later. Restrictions that discriminate on interstate commerce are virtually per se invalid. For example, just as with equal protection challenges, a city ordinance that only required nonresident transient merchants to post a bond was an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and unconstitutional. State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). Courts have held that formal licensing procedures and fees for solicitors, involved in interstate commerce (orders delivered from a different state at a later time) amount to an undue burden on commerce and violate the U.S. Constitution. Since residents and non-residents must be treated equally under the law, a prohibition on regulating out-of-state merchants creates a situation where in-state merchants may not be licensed as well. Wagner v. Covington, 251 U.S. 95, 40 S. Ct. 93 (1919). Peddlers and transient merchants have their goods within the state before the commercial transaction begins. Because of this, cities that license these classifications are not affecting interstate commerce. D. Freedom of religion U.S. Const. amend. I. Minn. Const. art. I, § 16. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally-protected right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness v. City of Houston, 689 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1982). Various forms of conduct can fall within an individual’s freedom of religion, from pure speech, the sale of religious materials, or the request for donations. Cities must use caution when attempting to regulate religious solicitors because of their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 122 S. Ct. 2080 (2002). A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibits cities from even registering individuals going from place to place to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In that case, the city required all solicitors to register and obtain a permit from the mayor’s office before entering private property to promote any cause. The Court held that a licensing requirement for social, political, and religious door-to-door canvassing would inhibit the free exercise of a person’s right to express ideas or solicit support anonymously or spontaneously. City regulations must be narrowly tailored to meet their purpose of protecting city residents from crimes and fraud, but cannot overreach and significantly burden noncommercial solicitors and their advocacy. It is unclear how far cities may go when constitutional rights and commercial activity intermingle. Of particular concern is the situation where professional fundraisers are used on behalf of a nonprofit, religious, or similar organization. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 119 S. Ct. 636 (1999). ACORN v. Golden, Colorado, 744 F. 2d 739 (10th Cir. 1984). While cities have taken different approaches in policing the activities of non-commercial advocates, a conservative approach is practicable. These types of solicitors should not be required to obtain a license; cities should probably not be requiring non-commercial advocates to register. Mandatory background checks are likely impermissible for non-commercial door-to- door activities; identification requirements for noncommercial activists have also been invalided. City regulations—requiring licensing, permitting, or registration for the dissemination of ideas—will be considered inherently suspect. V. Local regulations Apart from the Green River approach, a licensing ordinance is by far the most common method used to attempt to control the activities of peddlers, solicitors, and transient sellers. A. City ordinances Handbook, Chapter 7. Hanson v. City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). The decision to regulate people or property, and to provide penalties for any violations, should be adopted by city ordinance. As a result, the council must pass, in ordinance form, all police regulations for public health, morals, economic well-being, welfare, and safety. Ordinance regulations apply generally within the city and are permanent and continuing in nature. Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, 559 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). Ordinances, particularly when regulating peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, must be consistent with the constitutions and statutes of the United States and Minnesota. An ordinance must not limit or deny any common law or constitutional rights, or unreasonably restrain trade. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 17 RELEVANT LINKS: Press v. City of Minneapolis, 553 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). An ordinance must not be unconstitutionally vague. Ordinances must be reasonably certain in their terms and set forth objective standards, providing adequate notice of what is required and/or prohibited. Ordinances establish the process for granting and issuing licenses. See LMC sample ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. Although form varies from city to city, most peddler, solicitor, and transient merchant ordinances provide: • Definitions. • Exceptions. • Licensing requirements and exemptions. • License ineligibility. • Suspension/revocation procedures. • Transferability. • Registration. • Prohibited activities. • Exclusion by placard (modified Green River). City of St. Paul v. Briggs, 85 Minn. 290, 88 N.W. 984 (1902). Excelsior Baking Co. v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 188 (1956). State ex rel. Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 123 N.W. 408 (1909). The ordinance must specifically mention and define each term used for the purpose of the local regulation. The courts have been strict in their definitions of what type of activity constitutes a particular type of business practice. This is particularly important since there are legal distinctions between the terms “peddler,” “solicitor,” “canvasser,” and “transient merchant.” See LMC sample ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. A licensing ordinance should be complete and detailed. The ordinance provides the authority and procedures for: • Applying for the license. • The term of the license. • Required qualifications of the license applicant. • Bond and insurance requirements (if applicable). • The possible reasons for denial, revocation, or suspension of the license. • Transferability of the license. • Any other limitations or applicable city regulations. The ordinance should place specific time limits within which the decision- maker must issue the license or permit, and establish specific criteria used to determine whether to grant a license or permit. An ordinance should list some specific reasons for which an applicant could be denied a city license. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 18 RELEVANT LINKS: B. Licenses in general Handbook, Chapter 11. The city council’s authority to grant or refuse a license varies with the nature of the business or activity. On one hand, there are licenses (more appropriately considered a permit) available to anyone who applies, pays the required fee, and meets any basic conditions specified by city ordinance. When the applicant has complied with the requirements, the city must issue the license. Except for determining whether an applicant satisfies the basic, pre-existing written requirements, council or staff discretion is largely removed from the process. 54 A.L.R 1104. 92 A.L.R. 400. On the other hand is a city licensing system where, based on the potential abuses and in lieu of prohibiting the activity altogether, more extensive qualifications on license eligibility or on the business operations are weighed before a license is granted. A licensing ordinance is a tested and legally- sound method of regulation. Although more leeway is provided under this method, a city council cannot be given uncontrolled discretion in granting a license based on the character of the applicant, the nature of the organization, or the general welfare of the community. See Part V-section D Fees. 9 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 26.11. When a license is required, it must be obtained before sales begin and should be issued in the names of those persons who actually will be engaged in the peddling. Ordinances need to be specific and should prohibit the transfer of licenses from person to person. Fees need to be reasonable. Preference cannot be given to resident vendors over non-residents. Once issued, individuals have an interest in the license and the ability to conduct their door-to-door activities. When a license comes up for renewal, the licensee is in the same position as any other applicant unless a statute, charter, or local ordinance provides otherwise. Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Gifford v. Wiggins, 50 Minn. 401, 52 N.W. 904 (1892). Despite specific statutory authority that would seem to indicate otherwise, cities cannot prohibit the sale of some items but permit the sale of others, unless the prohibited items have some adverse effect on the public health, morals, safety or general welfare and even then, it may be difficult for the city to prove such detriment. C. Applications—background checks Minn. Stat. ch. 13. See LMC information memo, Data Practices: Analyze Classify & Respond. It is important for cities to consider the form of their peddler or transient merchant license applications. The information provided and the background checks that are authorized will be the means by which a city obtains all the information on which they will make their licensing determinations. Cities need to ensure they comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act in the collection and maintenance of such information. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 19 RELEVANT LINKS: Handbook, Chapter 11. The ordinance gives authority and guidance on the procedural matters involved. An ordinance should provide: • Who investigates the applicants. • Who decides whether an applicant is qualified. • What procedural rights exist in the case of denial, suspension, or revocation. When background checks are a required part of the process, there must be a demonstrable link between the inquiry and the ultimate goal of crime and fraud prevention and other general safety concerns. It is a good idea to make findings (statements of fact) when adopting the ordinance, establishing the crime and fraud problems requiring this action, and also ensuring that the background check’s results are considered when making licensing decisions. See LMC sample ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. With city licensing, time is always of the essence. Licenses should be issued as soon as reasonably possible, taking into account that applicant review takes time. To balance city and applicant needs, an ordinance should provide: • The actual amount of time city staff has to determine if the submitted application was completed in full (two days). • Licenses will be issued or denied within a specific period of time (within 10 regular business days). • Rights to appeal the decision, either through city or district court, within so many days of receipt of written denial (20 days of receipt). The timeframes provided should be clearly established within the ordinance and followed by city staff and elected officials. Handbook, Chapter 11. The background check determines whether an applicant can satisfy the personal requirements for obtaining a peddler or transient merchant’s license. Disqualifying factors could include: See LMC sample ordinance regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. • Failure to obtain a county license (when applicable). • Application was not completed truthfully. • Applicant has a record of criminal convictions related to the sale of goods, such as larceny, theft, or fraud. • Revocation of license elsewhere. • Bad business reputation. The prerequisites used must be valid, applied consistently, and able to withstand challenge. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 20 RELEVANT LINKS: D. Fees Watters v. People of State of Michigan, 248 U.S. 65, 39 S. Ct. 29 (1918). Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Cleveland, 105 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 1997). Whenever a city requires a license, it may also require a license fee. A license fee imposed on all peddlers (regardless of the source and nature of the products they peddle) can be a content neutral, constitutionally permissible time, place, and manner regulation as long as the purpose of charging the fee is limited to defraying the expenses incurred for regulating the activity. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 122 S. Ct. 2080 (2002). While permit or license fees probably cannot be charged for commercial and non-commercial door-to-door solicitors, cities may charge a fee to most peddlers and transient merchants. Cities often utilize a fee schedule to establish the fees for all city-issued licenses. By removing specific dollar amounts from specific ordinances and referencing a fee schedule, the city can pass one ordinance adopting the new fee schedule each time it changes a fee. See “Setting Municipal Fees,” Minnesota Cities (Apr. 2004, p. 19). Orr v. City of Rochester, 193 Minn. 371, 258 N.W. 569 (1935). State v. Redmond, 43 Minn. 250, 45 N.W. 232 (1890). Licensing should not be viewed as a significant source of revenue. A license fee should approximate the direct and indirect costs associated with issuing the license and policing the licensed activities. License fees that significantly exceed city costs are generally considered to be taxes the city does not have the authority to enact. A license fee may not be so high as to produce any substantial revenue beyond what it actually costs to issue the license and to supervise, inspect, and regulate the licensed business. Establishing licensing fees by simply comparing fees imposed by other cities can be problematic. The reasonable character of a particular fee depends on the kind of business, the amount of inspection and regulation, the current value of the dollar, and other inherently local factors—all of which can vary greatly by location. If the city fee is large enough to cover more than the cost of issuing the license and all city licenses expire on the same day, it may want to consider providing a pro rata fee system for those who get or give up licenses during the year. E. Bonds A bond is similar to an insurance policy. If a merchant fails to comply with city regulations or uphold his or her guarantees, an injured party may be entitled to recover funds secured by the bond. The benefit of requiring the posting of a bond before door-to-door or transient operations are allowed may appear obvious in theory, but is more problematic in practice. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 21 RELEVANT LINKS: Larson v. City of Shelton, 37 Wash.2d 481, 224 P.2d 1067 (1950). Bonding requirements for commercial activities may be used to ensure compliance with city standards, and to protect the public from fraud and other crimes. The protection of the public is an obvious reason for states and cities to require peddlers to post a bond to obtain a license or permit. These merchants are often here today and gone tomorrow. Unless a bond or deposit is required, local residents will have no remedy if fraud occurs. A.G. Op. 59a-32 (Jan. 13, 1961). A city considering including a bonding requirement must proceed with caution. Bonding requirements for non-commercial activities will likely be deemed unconstitutional if challenged. A bond may violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Commerce Clause if not imposed evenhandedly and a city cannot properly require a solicitor to post a bond. Finally, the required bond amounts should not be excessive in regard to the activity being regulated. F. Denying license State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 (1907). Where a Minnesota city has the power to regulate, it exercises the authority and considerable discretion to decide what restraints will be imposed. For operations that are nothing more than a fraudulent attempt to trap the unsuspecting or the unwary, a consequence of city regulations may be to prohibit those activities altogether. Grounds for denying a license may include: • A material misrepresentation in the application. • An applicant with “poor” moral character. • Circumstances where granting the license would harm the safety, health, morals, and general welfare of the community. Handbook, Chapter 11. A licensing ordinance doesn’t generally need to specifically define terms such as “good moral character” or “professional misconduct”. However, a city cannot generally disqualify someone from a licensed occupation, including peddling or transient sales, based solely upon a prior criminal conviction. A prior conviction must directly relate to the occupation for which the person is seeking the license. A city should also consider the time elapsed since the conviction when determining whether it justifies a denial. G. Registration As a less intrusive option, cities can, as an alternative to a full licensing process, require all peddlers and transient merchants to register with the city prior to beginning their operations. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 22 RELEVANT LINKS: Registration is a process that involves recording a person’s name and all other information necessary to ensure the good faith and conduct of the registrant. With registration, there are no approvals or denials, and no fees or background checks. The process should only take a few minutes, rather than the days involved with licensing. It is likely that a city may also require commercial solicitors to register prior to their door-to-door activities; registration alone should not have any impact on interstate commerce. This authority probably cannot extend to non- commercial operations (circumstances where an individual’s primary or sole purpose for going door-to-door is to further social, political, or religious beliefs) or where commercial profit, if present, is a secondary concern. VI. Suggestions The regulation of these profit and nonprofit activities is subject to ever- evolving legal interpretations. What may be a relatively safe and settled regulation today can change with a single decision from the U.S. or Minnesota Supreme Courts. Unfortunately, these new decisions don’t always clearly uphold or reverse prior decisions, leaving this area of law sometimes even more unsettled. Accordingly, Minnesota cities considering adopting or amending a city ordinance that regulates the activities of peddlers, solicitors and other transient merchants should work with their city attorney to ensure their regulations comply with all current legal requirements. From an intentionally conservative approach, a city should keep these basic ideas in mind when considering regulating peddlers, solicitors (both commercial and non-commercial), or other transient merchant and their activities: • Do nothing. • Adopt a Green River ordinance and prohibit most commercial door-to- door and transient activities. • Adopt a modified Green River ordinance, either alone or as part of a larger city licensing or regulatory ordinance, allowing residents to decide if they want to create a blanket prohibition for door-to-door advocacy on their property. • License peddlers and transient merchants. • Register peddlers, transient merchants, and commercial solicitors. • When activities concern non-commercial social, political, or religious advocates, the city may not be able to license or register. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 23 RELEVANT LINKS: Because this can become a highly litigated (and potentially costly) concern, and because there is the potential risk for violating constitutional protections, cities need to involve their city attorney before adopting or revising any municipal regulation that affects peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 24 Appendix A: Local Authority – Regulations or Prohibitions This chart provides a basic summary of the general authority cities have in regulating or prohibiting door-to-door or transient activities. As this area of law is subject to change, a city should consult its city attorney when establishing (or reviewing) local regulations. Classification Can City Regulate? Can City Prohibit? Can Resident Prohibit? Peddlers, Solicitors & Transient Merchants (For-Profit Activities) ? Cities have significant authority to regulate the activities of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants—from licensing or registration requirements for most peddler or transient operations, to establishing time, place, and manner restrictions on all operations. While our courts have never determined the validity of a Green River ordinance (prohibiting all transient activities) as applied specifically to the Minnesota Constitution (likely to be upheld), a total prohibition could conflict with particular provisions of the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of speech or the regulation of interstate commerce. Additionally, a city can adopt a modified Green River ordinance, where residents, through their posting of notice, individually determine if peddlers or solicitors are welcome. Canvassers (Non-Commercial Door-to-Door Activities) No* While non-commercial door-to-door activities fall under various constitutional protections, cities have the ability to establish reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on their operations; regulations that do not, in purpose or practice, prohibit those activities from occurring. These protections will still apply to sales that are “secondary” to the primary, constitutionally-protected rights of free speech, freedom of religion, etc. If a Green River ordinance is adopted, its general prohibition on transient or door-to-door activities probably cannot be applied to individuals going door-to-door exercising their constitutional rights. While a city would have the general authority to prohibit purely fraudulent canvassing activities, that would, in practice, occur more on a case-by-case basis and not through specific ordinance prohibitions. However, a modified Green River, with the resident, and not the government, regulating speech would most likely apply to commercial and non-commercial activities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 25 Appendix B: Local Authority - Licensing or Registration This chart provides a summary of the general authority cities have in regulating door-to-door or transient activities. As it is often difficult to classify actual conduct into only one of these classifications, a city should consult its city attorney when such specific assistance is needed. Classification Can City Require License? Can City Require Registration? Peddlers *While most peddlers are subject to a city’s licensing or registration requirements, there are trades or activities that are exempt from local licensing. See Part III – E - Licensing – exemptions. Solicitors (For-Profit Operations) No *Licensing of for-profit solicitors brings up equal protection and interstate commerce concerns. See Part II – B – Solicitors and canvassers. Transient Merchants *Most transient merchants are subject to city licensing or registrations. However, there are activities (i.e. produce stands) that may be exempt from local licensing. See Part III – E - Licensing – exemptions. Canvassers (Not-for-Profit Solicitations) No No *The licensing and/or registering of religious, political, or other non-profit canvassers impacts constitutional rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). See Part IV - Constitutional implications. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/12/2014 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 26 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11b. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Jessica Beise & Matt Gottschalk Topic: Criminal Background Check Policy Action Required: Approval Summary: As a part of the administration department reorganization, a discussion of a formalized background check policy was had. Staff found that a 2013 state law changed and no longer required an ordinance for Police Departments to conduct criminal background investigations. The League of Minnesota Cities recommends that cities adopt a background check policy to formalize the background check process. Staff has adapted the League of Minnesota Cities Model Background Check Policy to fit our needs in Corcoran. The City Attorney’s office has reviewed this policy. Financial/Budget: The costs of criminal background checks are minimal for hiring processes and the license fee is designed to cover the criminal background for licenses. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees. EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY We believe that every employee and citizen should be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of employment, citizenship, and governance in the City of Corcoran based exclusively on their ability to contribute. Options: 1) Approve the proposed City of Corcoran Criminal Background Check Policy. 2) Decline to implement the City of Corcoran Criminal Background Check Policy 3) Send back to staff for further review. Page 2 Recommendation: Approve the proposed City of Corcoran Criminal Background Check Policy. Council Action: 1) Consider a motion to approve the proposed City of Corcoran Criminal Background Check Policy. Attachments: 1) City of Corcoran Criminal Background Check Policy CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS POLICY FOR EMPLOYMENT AND LICENSE APPLICANTS PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance to the City’s police department when accessing Minnesota’s criminal history information data base for purposes of employment and licensing background checks under Minn. Stat. 299C.72. APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT Consistent with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 299C.72, the Corcoran Police Department will conduct a criminal history background investigation on the applicants for the following positions within the city, unless the city’s hiring authority concludes that a background investigation is not needed: All regular part-time or full-time employees of the City of Corcoran, contract employees and other volunteer positions that work with children or vulnerable adults. In conducting the criminal history background investigation in order to screen employment applicants, the Police Department is authorized to access data maintained in the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s criminal history information data base in accordance with Minn. Stat. §299C.72. Any data that is accessed and acquired shall be maintained at the Police Department under the care and custody of the Director of Public Safety or his or her designee. A summary of the results of the criminal history data may be released by the Police Department to the hiring authority, including the City Council, the City Administrator, City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator, or other city staff involved in the hiring process. Before the investigation is undertaken, the applicant must authorize the Police Department by written consent to undertake the investigation. The written consent must fully comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 regarding the collection, maintenance, and use of the information. Except for the positions set forth in Minn. Stat. § 364.09, the city will not reject an applicant for employment on the basis of the applicant’s prior conviction unless the crime is directly related to the position of employment sought and the conviction is for a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor with a jail sentence. If the city rejects the applicant's request on this basis, the city shall notify the applicant in writing of the following: • The grounds and reasons for the denial. • The applicant complaint and grievance procedure set forth in Minn. Stat. § 364.06. • The earliest date the applicant may reapply for employment. • That all competent evidence of rehabilitation will be considered upon reapplication. APPLICANTS FOR CITY LICENSES Consistent with the authority provided in Minn. Stat. Sec. 299C.72, the Corcoran Police Department will conduct a criminal history background investigation on the applicants for the following licenses within the city (Note, authority to conduct retail liquor license background checks is found in Minn. Stat. 340A. 402) : City licenses: • Liquor License • Tobacco License In conducting the criminal history background investigation in order to screen license applicants, the Police Department is authorized to access data maintained in the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s criminal history information systems data base in accordance with Minn. Stat. §299C.72. Any data that is accessed and acquired shall be maintained at the Police Department under the care and custody of the Director of Public Safety or his or her designee. A summary of the results of the criminal history data may be released by the Police Department to the licensing authority, including the City Council, the City Administrator, City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator or other city staff involved in the license approval process. Before the investigation is undertaken, the applicant must authorize the Police Department by written consent to undertake the investigation. The written consent must fully comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 regarding the collection, maintenance, and use of the information. Except for the positions set forth in Minn. Stat. § 364.09, the city will not reject an applicant for a license on the basis of the applicant’s prior conviction unless the crime is directly related to the license sought and the conviction is for a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor with a jail sentence. If the city rejects the applicant’s request on this basis, the city shall notify the applicant in writing of the following: • The grounds and reasons for the denial. • The applicant complaint and grievance procedure set forth in Minn. Stat. § 364.06. • The earliest date the applicant may reapply for the license. • That all competent evidence of rehabilitation will be considered upon reapplication. Effective date: This policy shall take effect upon November 12, 2015 upon the adoption of the City Council. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11c. Council Meeting: November 12, 2015 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Draft 2016 Fee Schedule Action Required: Direction Summary: Annually the City must adopt a fee schedule used to bill individuals for various services provided by the City. Attached to this report is a draft fee schedule for 2016. Staff would like the Council to provide any feedback on the fee schedule in advance of formally adopting it with the 2016 budget and levy. Areas highlighted on the report note changes from the 2015 fee schedule. Usage fees for water and sewer have not been changed as staff is working through a process of recommending a change to the billing structure. Financial/Budget: The fee schedule sets the amounts charged for various services provided by the City. Changes have been incorporated into the draft 2016 budget. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Options: 1. Provide direction to staff on the draft 2016 fee schedule. Recommendation: Provide direction to staff on the draft 2016 fee schedule. Council Action: Provide direction to staff on the draft 2016 fee schedule. Attachments: 1. Draft 2016 Fee Schedule CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE FEE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE SCHEDULE G/L Records & Service for City Document (Includes Tax) 100-41900-34000 Resident Address List Labels 60.00 100-41900-34107 Assessment Search from County 25.00 100-41900-34000 USB Flash Drive 10.00 100-41900-36210 Interest charge on 30 day past due Escrow accounts 10% 100-41900-34105 Notary Fee - per document 1.00 100-41900-34105 Candidate Filing Fee 2.00 Code Books 100-41900-34105 Code Book (Codes/Zoning/Subd) Binder 65.00 100-41900-34105 Municipal Code Only 35.00 100-41900-34105 Subdivision Code Only 35.00 100-41900-34105 Zoning Code Only 35.00 100-41900-34105 Comprehensive Plan Book Printed - special order 100.00 Copies 100-41900-34105 Copies black/white - up to 8 1/2x14 per page 0.25 100-41900-34105 Copies black/white - 11 x 17 per page 0.55 100-41900-34105 Copies Color up to 8 1/2x14 pp 1.00 100-41900-34105 Copies Color 11x17 1.50 100-41900-34105 Copies Oversize (Larger than 11X17) - Special Order Varies Labor/Staff Research 100-41900-34000 Normal Business Hrs (1 hr min.) per hour 65.00 100-41900-34000 After Hours (1 hr minimum) per hour 100.00 Late Fees / Penalties 100-41941-36200 Returned Check Fee 38.00 100-41941-36200 Delinquent Fee 10.00 100-42400-36200 Permit Cancellation Fee 25.00 Maps 100-41900-34105 Color Maps - on cardstock 3.00 100-41900-34105 Oversized or Laminated - special order Varies 100-41900-34105 Topos - special order Varies Newsletter Advertising ??? 100-41900-36230 Full page 400.00 100-41900-36230 1/2 page 250.00 100-41900-36230 1/4 page or Business card size 75.00 100-41900-36230 Insert flyer for mailing supplied by customer 200.00 Recycling Fee 100-43232-34400 Recycling Fee - Annually 34.50 100-43232-34400 Recycling Delinquent Fee 10.00 100-43232-34400 Recycling Provider Late Fee 1.5% per month Community Room Fees Damage Deposit Required On All Rentals Group 1 Local Non Profit Groups: NW Area Jaycees, Lions, Pioneer Society, Seniors, Athletic Assoc, NW Trails, Corcoran Garden Club, Corcoran Bee Club N/C Group 2 Corcoran Residents 10% discount Community Room Rental Fee - Per Day Includes Kitchen and Memorial Garden 100-41941-34101 Monday - Thursday 150.00 100-41941-34101 Friday 275.00 100-41941-34101 Saturday - Sunday 350.00 Community Room Rental - General Public Non-Profit Groups - Per Day 100-41941-34101 If Contract 6 + time per year (Excludes Saturdays)80.00 per day Conference Room/Council Chamber Rental Fee - Per Day 100-41941-34101 Conference Room/Council Chamber 75.00 Approved Non Profit Public Safety Training Classes 100-41941-34101 Conference Room (up to 10 people)35.00 100-41941-34101 Damage Deposit 350.00 Police Security 100-42100-34201 Police Security serving alcohol (per hr no discount applies)*70.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE FEE 100-42100-34201 Police Security serving alcohol (holiday rate per hr no discount applies)*90.00 201-42100-34201 Reserve Officer Event Security (per hr no discount applies)*20.00 City Park - Picnic Facility 100-45200-34101 Rental Fee 80.00 100-45200-34101 Damage Deposit 350.00 100-45200-34101 Soccer/Football/Baseball - per field (6 hour usage)30.00 100-45200-34101 Lights (Lions field only) - Additional per game 30.00 100-45200-34101 Tennis Courts - All courts 4 hour usage 30.00 Fields/Tennis Courts Damage Deposit (per season, all groups)350.00 Engraved Memorial Bricks (tax included) 415-45200-36230 4 x 8 Engraved Brick 50.00 415-45200-36230 12 x 12 Engraved Brick 100.00 415-45200-36230 Engraved Stone (Large)135.00 415-45200-36230 Engraved Stone (X-Large)175.00 415-45200-36230 48" Maintenance Free Bench Varies* 415-45200-36230 Concrete Bench - 22 Characters Varies* 415-45200-36230 Granite Bench Varies* *Product and prices subject to change with vendors Licenses & Miscellaneous Permits Liquor/Tobacco License 100-41900-32110 Temporary 3.2 Malt Liquor License - 1 - 4 Day Event 25.00 100-41900-32110 Temporary Malt Liquor License - 1 - 4 Day Event 25.00 100-41900-32110 Temporary 3.2 Malt Liquor License - Annual Max 100.00 100-41900-32110 On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor 100.00 100-41900-32110 Off Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor 25.00 100-41600-32110 Investigation (New/Transfer License)100.00 100-41900-32110 On Sale Intoxicating Liquor 4,000.00 100-41900-32110 Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor (Fee limited by State Law)150.00 100-41900-32110 Sunday Sale Intoxicating Liquor (Fee limited by State Law)200.00 100-42100-34202 Investigation Fee (New/Transfer License)300.00 100-41900-32110 2:00 am Closing - REMOVE THIS IS PAID TO THE STATE 0.00 100-41900-32110 Tobacco License 150.00 100-45200-36200 Fireworks Permit-Per Event 25.00 100-41900-34103 Hobby Kennel - Annual Fee 75.00 Burning Permit 100-42100-34200 Valid for 10 Days 10.00 100-42100-34200 Valid for 120 Days 50.00 Driveway Permit 100-43100-34300 Driveway Permit 100.00 Grading & Land Reclamation Permit 100-43100-34300 Under 300 Cubic Yards 35.00 100-43100-34300 Over 300 Cubic Yards - residential 300.00 100-43100-34300 Per acre security fee 250.00 One Acre Minimum (No security fee for under 300 Cubic Yads required) Additional fees may be required as determined by staff Overweight Vehicle Permit Agriculture N/C 100-43100-34300 Commercial Tow Truck 750.00 100-43100-34300 Daily Permit 100.00 100-43100-34300 Seasonal - Emergency (Septic, Liquid Propane & SimIlar)N/C Resident - To and From N/C 100-43100-34300 Seasonal - Home Delivery 250.00 100-43100-34300 No Permit - Double Fee Max $250.00 All Charges are Per Truck - Permits are Restricted Sign Permit 100-41900-36200 No Planning Comm Review - Temporary 25.00 100-41900-36200 No Planning Comm Review - Permanent 150.00 100-41900-36200 Planning Commission Review (Fee/Escrow)150.00/500.00 Utility Permit 100-43100-34300 IE:Comcast, Century Link, CenterPoint Energy, Wright-Hennepin, etc 75.00 Public Safety CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE FEE G/L Police Reports 100-42100-34202 Police Reports - Base Charge 7.00 100-42100-34202 Police Reports - Surcharge (Per Page) *0.25 100-42100-34202 Audio/Video on USB Flash Drive 10.00 100-42100-34202 Normal Business Hrs (1 hr min.) per hour 65.00 Finger Printing Resident - Child N/C 100-42100-34202 Non-Resident - Child 10.00 Resident - Adult N/C 100-42100-34202 Non-Resident - Adult 15.00 Additional Cards - Resident N/C 100-42100-34202 Additional Cards - Non-Resident 5.00 False Alarm Fire Emergency 100-42100-35101 2-3 In any 12-month period ( Each)75.00 100-42100-35101 4+ In any 12-month period (Each)150.00 False Alarm Police 1-3 In any 12-month period N/C 100-42100-35101 4+ In any 12-month period 100.00 Firearm Permits 100-42100-34200 High Powered Discharge of Fire Arm - Resident**15.00 100-42100-34200 High Powered Discharge of Fire Arm - Non-Resident**20.00 100-42100-34200 Permit to Purchase/Transfer N/C Rental Fee 100-42100-34200 Range contract per day (law enforcement agencies only)50.00 100-42100-34200 Command Post per day 50.00 Vehicle Impound 100-42100-34202 Vehicle Impound Release 10.00 100-42100-34202 Storage Fee Weekly 75.00 Animal Impound 100-42100-35101 1st Offense 50.00 100-42100-35101 2nd Offense 150.00 100-42100-35101 No Kennel License 50.00 Event Security Rates 100-42100-34201 Officer - per hour 70.00 100-42100-34201 Officer - per hour Holiday rate 90.00 201-42100-34201 Reserve Officer - per hour 20.00 *Fee Set By State / **Restricted Public Works G/L Equipment Usage Per Hour (Government Agency Assistance) 100-43100-36200 Tractor/Backhoe 50.00 100-43100-36200 Dump Truck 65.00 100-43100-36200 Front End Wheel Loader 40.00 100-43100-36200 Road Grader 80.00 100-43100-36200 Skid Loader 40.00 100-43100-36200 Wood Chipper 40.00 Labor 100-43100-36200 Per Hour 65.00 Lawn Mowing - Property Cleanup 100-43100-36200 Mowing 1 acre & under 315.00 100-43100-36200 Mowing over 1 acre - $315 + additional hourly rate 85.00 100-43100-36200 Contract tree and weed removal Cost + 65.00 100-43100-36200 Contract rubbish removal Cost + 65.00 Swing Away Mail Box Arms (Sales Tax included) 100-41941-36200 Post only (mailbox not included)65.00 100-41941-36200 Post and Installation (mailbox not included)150.00 Street Department Fees 100-43100-36200 Street Sign Install Labor (Per hour)75.00 100-43100-34301 Dust Control Assessment Established Annually 100-43100-34301 Dust Control (Voluntary) 300' min.Established Annually 100-43100-34301 Dust Control Delinquent Fee 10.00 100-43100-36200 Culvert priced per foot Cost + 65.00 CITY OF CORCORAN 2016 DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE FEE Planning Development & Zoning Fees Land Use Permit/Application Type Non-Refundable Application Fee Escrow 100-41900-34103 Agriculture Preserve Application - Placement (fee limited by state) 50.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Agriculture Preserve Application - Removal (fee limited by state) 50.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Administrative Permit 100.00 1,000.00 100-41900-34103 Certificate of Compliance 80.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1,000.00 2,200.00 100-41900-34103 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)550.00 2,200.00 100-41900-34103 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment 200.00 1,000.00 100-41900-34103 Environmental Review 500.00 5,000.00 100-41900-34103 Interim Use Permit 500.00 2,000.00 100-41900-34103 Final Plat – Base Fee Regular / OSP 575.00 5,000.00 100-41900-34103 Final Plat – Per Lot Regular /OSP 50.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Park Dedication Fees (Subdivision Ordinance) Section 955 100-41900-34103 Maximum Fee per residential unit inside the MUSA 4,000.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Maximum Fee per residential unit outside the MUSA 3,000.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Preliminary Plat – Base Regular /OSP 600.00 5,000.00 100-41900-34103 Preliminary Plat – Per Lot Regular / OSP 50.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 PUD -Preliminary Development Plan 575.00 5,000.00 100-41900-34103 PUD - Final Development Plan 500.00 5,000.00 100-41900-34103 PUD - Sketch Plat/Plan Review 450.00 2,000.00 100-41900-34103 Rezoning 575.00 2,000.00 100-41900-36200 Sign - Wetland Buffer Sign (per sign - requires site inspection)20.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Sign - Development Notice Sign $165.00 first sign/ $50.00 each additional 165.00 0.00 100-41900-34103 Site Plan 425.00 1,500.00 100-41900-34103 Site Plan Amendment - Minor 200.00 1,000.00 100-41900-34103 Sketch Plat/Plan Review - Regular / OSP 450.00 1,750.00 100-41900-34103 Topography Exemption, Wetland Waiver, Electronic File Waiver 200.00 1,000.00 100-41900-34103 Vacation 350.00 1,000.00 100-41900-34103 Variance 550.00 2,000.00 100-41900-34103 Zoning/Subdivision Code Amendment 700.00 2,000.00 100-41900-34103 Meeting with City Consultants (first hour no charge)Over 1 hour Contract fee 500.00 2016 FEE SCHEDULE FEE DRAFT WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FEE SCHEDULE Water rates - residential (monthly use) per 1,000 gallons Tier 1: 1,000 gallons to 20,000 gallons 1.76 Tier 2: +20,000 gallons to 40,000 gallons 2.09 Tier 3: +40,000 gallons 2.51 Water rates - non residential (monthly use) per 1,000 gallons Tier 1: 1,000 gallons to 20,000 gallons 1.67 Tier 2: +20,000 gallons to 40,000 gallons 2.09 Tier 3: +40,000 gallons 2.51 Water base fees - payable by each user for each month Residential 10.30 Non residential 10.30 State Water Testing 1.65 Sewer rates - residential (monthly use) per 1,000 gallons Tier 1: 1,000 gallons +2.42 Sewer rates - non residential (monthly use) per 1,000 gallons Tier 1: 1,000 gallons +2.42 Sewer base fees - payable by each user for each month Residential 21.63 Non residential 21.63 Late/Past Due Payments Late Payment Penalty 10% of unpaid bill Water Disconnect 65.00 Water Reconnect 65.00 Trunk Line Availability Charge (TLAC) Water Trunk Line Availability Charge (TLAC) - per acre 5,305.00 Sewer Trunk Line Availability Charge (TLAC) - per acre 3,203.00 Connection Fees - City of Corcoran Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Single Family 1,061.00 Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Multi-Family 849.00 Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Non-Residential 1,061.00 Sewer Connection Fee (per unit) - Single Family 1,061.00 Sewer Connection Fee (per unit) - Multi-Family 849.00 Sewer Connection Fee (per unit) - Non-Residential 1,061.00 Connection Fees - City of Maple Grove (Per Maple Grove Fee Schedule) Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Residential/individual laundry facilities 2,130.00 Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Residential/ no individual laundry facilities 1,705.00 Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Commercial/Industrial/Mixed 8,520.00 Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Parks 1,065.00 Water Connection Fee (per unit) - Institutional 8,520.00 Connection Fees - Metropolitan Council Sewer Access Charge (SAC)2,485.00 Meter Fees Meter - standard Cost plus 10% Meter - larger than standard Cost plus 10% Meter Inspection 65.00 City of Corcoran 2015 City Council Schedule Agenda Item 13. Page 1 of 1 November 23, 2015 (Monday) • Planning Project Update • Code Compliance Report • Spanier Conditional Use Permit and After-the-Fact Variance for an accessory building exceeding allowable sidewall height at 10520 Cain Road (PID 02-119- 23-23-0004) (City file no. 15-019) • PUBLIC HEARING. Lennar Vacation of Easement for Ravinia (Ebert Property) (City file no. 15-020) (continued from October 8th) • Paving gravel collector roads • Recognition program for employees, elected officials, and appointed officials • 2016 Budget • Compensation Study Process • Speed Sign Quotes • Union Contract • Draft Water/Sanitary Sewer budgets December 10, 2015 • Performance Report • Truth-in-Taxation Hearing • PUBLIC HEARING. Lawn King Street Vacation (city file 15-021?) • Downtown Utility and Street Improvement Project o Review Plans and Specifications o Consider authorizing bid of project • City Administrator Performance Evaluation December 21, 2015 (Monday) • Planning Project Update • Code Compliance Report • Adopt 2016 Budget and Levy • Consider approving bid for downtown utility and street improvement project • Consider approving bid for paving gravel collector road