Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-11-09 Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF CORCORAN *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by Door. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the website at www.ci.corcoran.mn.us. Corcoran City Council Agenda November 9, 2017 - 7:00pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Open Forum 5.Presentations 6.Consent Agenda a.Draft Minutes of October 26, 2017 Council Meeting* b.Tort Liability Waiver* 7.Claims as Presented a.Escrow Claims (Fund #500)* b.All Other Financial Claims* 8.Staff Reports / Memos / Commissions a.Commission Representatives* b.Public Works Director Three Month Report* c.Sub-watershed Assessment Meeting* 9.Planning Business 10.Unfinished Business 11.New Business a.Solicitors, Peddlers Transient Merchants Ordinance Component Review* b.Draft 2018 Water and Sewer Budgets* c.Emergency Communications Systems Fee Ordinance* d.Public Works Maintenance Operator Recruitment* 12.2017 Council Schedule* 13.Council Liaison Calendar Planning Commission 12/7/17 1/4/18 2/1/18 3/1/18 4/5/18 Bottema Dejewski LaFave Keefe Thomas Parks and Trails Commission 12/19/17 1/16/18 2/20/18 3/20/18 4/17/18 Keefe Available Bottema Available LaFave 14.Adjournment CITY OF CORCORAN City Council Meeting Minutes October 26, 2017 - 7:00pm The Corcoran City Council met on October 26, 2017 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Mayor Thomas, Councilor Bottema, Councilor Dejewski, Councilor Keefe, and Councilor LaFave. Also present were City Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise, Public Works Director Mattson, Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, and Code Compliance Official Pritchard. 1.Call to Order / Roll Call Mayor Thomas called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2.Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Thomas invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Agenda Approval MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by LaFave to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) 4.Open Forum No persons were present for open forum. 5.Presentations No presentations were heard. 6.Consent Agenda a. Draft Minutes of October 12, 2017 Council Meeting MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Keefe to approve the consent agenda as presented. Mayor Thomas noted that clerical errors were provided to staff to amend. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) 7.Claims as Presented a. Escrow Claims (Fund #500) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Keefe to approve escrow claims as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) b. All Other Financial Claims MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by LaFave to approve all other claims as presented. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) 8.Staff Reports / Memos/Commissions a. Commissioner Representatives Mayor Thomas noted Parks and Trails Commissioner Nybo and Planning Commissioner Russell were in attendance and invited them to speak on items related to their Commissions. b. Planning Project Update Council received the report. Council inquired about noting the new projects on the Planning Project Update and Code Compliance Report. c.Code Compliance Report; report received. d.Overview of Code Enforcement Scenarios Agenda Item 6a. Council inquired about towing junk vehicles. Code Compliance Official Pritchard noted the City has not typically abated cars on private property. e. Financial Performance Report City Administrator Martens presented the report outlining the projected surplus and that the insurance trust dividend is not budgeted as it’s not guaranteed. Council discussed budgeting for revenue sources such as a dividend. 9. Public Hearing – Delinquent Fee a. Certifying Delinquent Fees to Hennepin County City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise outlined the report noting the current amounts due and that Council received written comments related to recycling. City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator noted that Council has the authority to waive assessments and staff recommends not waiving as it could create precedence. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. No persons were present to speak. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by Bottema to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) Council discussed opinions on waiving fees; no fees were waived. MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to adopt Resolutions 2017-65 and 2017-66 and authorize staff to edit the resolutions to include the levy number which will be provided by Hennepin County. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) 10. Planning Business a. Public Hearing. Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Variances for Hales Corner 2nd Addition located at 6450 and 6470 Pioneer Trail (PID 32-119-23-32-0013 & 32-119-23-32-0012) (City File 17-025) City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting the easement vacation would vacate current easement along the property line and a new easement would be required as part of the plat. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. No persons were present to speak. MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by Keefe to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by LaFave to adopt Resolution 2017-67 Approving a Preliminary Plat and Variance for Properties Located at 6450 and 6470 Pioneer Trail (PID 32-119- 23-32-0013 & 32-119-23-32-0012) (City File 17-025). Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by Keefe to adopt Resolution 2017-68 Approving Final Plat for “Hales Corner 2nd Addition” for property located at 6450 and 6470 Pioneer Trail (PID 32-119-23- 32-0013 & 32-119-23-32-0012) (City File 17-025). Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by LaFave, seconded by Bottema to adopt Resolution 2017-67 Approving Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements within the “Hales Corner 2nd Addition” Subdivision (City File 17- 025). Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary PUD for ‘Bass Lake Estates’ a Mixed-Use Development at 19219 and 19235 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-44-0002 & 25-119-23-44-0003) (City File 17-026) City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting the trail connection at the north end of the property will be constructed to let residents know about future trail connections. City Planner Lindahl noted the PUD request for more than 20% of the self-storage to be metal which is consistent with the approvals for other self-storage if providing higher quality materials. City Planner Lindahl noted that the Homeowners Association Documents must note activities at Lions Park and Shamrock Golf Course. Greg Hayes, Ebert Construction, addressed the Council noting landscaping will be adjusted. Council inquired about the building materials. Mr. Hayes provided an overview of the materials proposed. Planning Commissioner Russell noted the proposed easement expansion was to accommodate the driveway. City Administrator Martens noted there was some discussion at the Planning Commission about constructing the trail sooner rather than later. Planning Commissioner Theis noted the proposed easement expansion was to allow for an on-road trail. City Administrator Martens noted the Council discussed the easement expansion. City Planner Lindahl noted the proposed easement expansion would shift the lot lines. Council discussed garages facades and bus stops. John Rask, M/I Homes, addressed the Council regarding the proposed housing types and the goal for variation. Mr. Rask noted the cul-de-sac is designed to accommodate a fire truck. Council discussed the bus stop concern. Mr. Rask noted the secondary access requested by Public Safety would be an emergency access off of County Road 10. City Planner Lindahl noted the cul- de-sac designs allow for emergency vehicles and would likely meet the needs for a school bus. Director of Public Safety Gottschalk noted the roads are designed to meet standards to emergency vehicles and the applicant is not requesting a deviation from standards. Council discussed five-foot setbacks. City Planner Lindahl noted the sketch plat proposed four-foot setbacks and received input that five-foot setbacks would be the minimum allowed. Council discussed the elevations of the self - storage facility. Mr. Hayes noted dense landscaping along three sides and the berm along Lions Park. Mr. Hayes noted there are ten proposed color variations for the self-storage building materials. Council discussed Lions Park and plans to work with Lions Park on buffering. Mr. Hayes noted the fencing along Lions Park will be replaced and grading on both properties would be completed to meet goals. Council inquired about signage and landscaping. Mr. Hayes noted they would propose a monument sign and additional landscaping along County Road 10 would be required and currently there are eight species being proposed. Council inquired about the self- storage proposed buildings. Mr. Hayes noted the self-storage facility would be a phased construction. Council inquired about the Homeowners Association Documents. Mr. Rask noted language would be provided noting the current activities of Lions Park and Shamrock Golf Course. Council inquired about the impact of golfers and golf ball damage on homes. Mr. Rask noted there is a distance between the hole, the homes as well as significant trees, and the future trail plan to host along the lot lines allowed the buffer trees to be maintained. Council discussed their experience with the current course. Council discussed land use continuity, setbacks, and rural character. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Keefe to adopt Resolution 2017-70 Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Property Located at 19219 and 19235 County Road 10 (PID 25- 119-23-44-0002 & 25-119-23-44-0003) (City File 17-026). Councilor LaFave noted she would vote against the motion due to concerns with the setbacks. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe Nay: LaFave (Motion carried 4:1) MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by Keefe to adopt Ordinance 2017-359 Amending Title X (Zoning Ordinance) of the City Code to Classify Land Located at 19219 and 19235 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-44-0002 & 25-119-23-44-0003) (City File 17-026). Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe Nay: LaFave (Motion carried 4:1) MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to adopt Resolution 2017-71 Approving Findings of Face for Rezoning Property Located at 19219 and 19235 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-44- 0002 & 25-119-23-44-0003) (City File 17-026). Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe Nay: LaFave (Motion carried 4:1) MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to adopt Resolution 2017-72 Approving Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for “Bass Lake Estates” for E & R Investments, LLC on the 38.98 Acre Site at 19219 and 19235 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-44-0002 & 25- 119-23-44-0003) (City File 17-026). Council inquired if the resolution provided the setback flexibility. City Planner Lindahl noted the setbacks and the trail easement recommendation from the Parks and Trails commission are listed in the resolution. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, and Keefe Nay: Dejewski and LaFave (Motion carried 3:2) MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to adopt Resolution 2017-73 Approving Preliminary Plat for “Bass Lake Estates” for E & R Investments, LLC on the 38.98 Acre Site at 19219 and 19235 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-44-0002 & 25-119-23-44-0003) (City File 17- 026). Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe Nay: LaFave (Motion carried 4:1) c. Tax Forfeit Properties City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting the history on the properties. Council inquired about the size of the proposed Acacia Hills parcel. City Panner Lindahl noted the property was 5.39 acres. Council discussed the tax forfeiture process. MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by LaFave to adopt Resolution 2017-74 Requesting Tax Forfeited Property in the City of Corcoran (PID 13-119-23-23-0015). Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave Nay: Bottema (Motion carried 4:1) d. City-initiated Sign Ordinance Update (City File 15-012) City Planner Lindahl presented the report noting the history of the current sign ordinance. Council discussed the sign ordinance. Council inquired about staff working with the dynamic sign process. City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Beise noted staff worked within the current ordinance observing other cities had varied sizes allowed and a portion of the sign can stay static. Council discussed challenges including the limited ability to use different fonts based on the current size allowed and the messaging software does not allow for messaging change every twelve seconds as currently set as the minimum standard. Council discussed a six second requirement and allowing dynamic portion up to sixty percent in all districts. e. Repeal of Solar Moratorium City Administrator Martens presented the report. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Dejewski to adopt Ordinance 2017-357 Repealing the Moratorium Prohibiting the Establishment of Community Solar Gardens in all Rural Residential and Urban Reserve Districts within the City of Corcoran. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to adopt Ordinance 2017-358 Summary Ordinance of 2017-358. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) 11. Unfinished Business a. Feasibility Report – Willow Drive and Larkin Road Improvement Project Gail Waldorf, 20117 Larkin Road, addressed the Council regarding the paving of Willow Drive/Larkin Road. Ms. Waldorf addressed concerns on the traffic counts, increased traffic, trails, assessments, bonding, conflict of interests, and tax increases. Dwight Benson, 20205 Larking Road, address the Council regarding the paving of Willow Drive/Larkin Road. Mr. Benson addressed concerns on the trail, trail clean up, removal of trees, increased taxes, and increased speed. Mr. Benson noted he agreed the Council not bonding more than needed. Daniel Dixon, 2205 Larkin Road, address the Council regarding the paving of Willow Drive/Larkin Road. Mr. Dixon addressed concerns on state aid roads, commercial traffic, safety concerns, losing rural character, and bonding. Mr. Dixon suggest building City roads. Phillip Bongaarts, 19949 Larkin Road, addressed the Council regarding the paving of Willow Drive/Larkin Road. Mr. Bongaarts address concerns a delayed overlay, cost of the assessment, and the loss of value to the property. Sara Harvey, 8850 Trail Haven Road, addressed the Council regarding the paving gravel roads. Ms. Harvey has concerns with the costs, property value, trails, road restrictions, increased commercial traffic, assessments, and financial impact. Landon Pohl, 20207 Abilene Lane, addressed the Council regarding the paving of gravel roads. Mr. Pohl addressed concerns about losing the country feel and not what they moved Council discussed the reimbursement for any takings, residents can attest the value of the assessment, the history of the Municipal State Aid system in Corcoran, road restrictions, and speed limits. City Administrator Martens presented the report noting the financial assumptions changes leaving a gap of approximately $356,700.00 and that voting for the feasibility study does not lock in the proposed funding. Council discussed trails and receiving public input. MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Bottema to adopt Resolution 2017-75 Approving the Feasibility Report for the Willow Drive and Larkin Road Improvement Project and Calling for Improvement Hearing. Council discussed the paving of the road, maintenance issues, conflicting sentiments from residents, and research on paving gravel roads. Councilor LaFave noted she would vote no for her preference for paving Trail Haven Road and not being in favor of bonding. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, and Keefe Nay: LaFave (Motion carried 4:1) 12. New Business a. Maple Hill Estates Water/Sewer Connection Discussion City Administrator Martens presented the report outlining the request of the applicant and area in which the City has discretion per the ordinance. Council inquired about the sewer and water rates. City Administrator Martens noted the costs for sewer are determined by the Metropolitan Council and the water is determined by the City based on the contracted rates for water with Maple Grove. Council inquired about what happened if property is sold. City Administrator Martens noted that additional connection fees may be required if the property is sold and subdivided. Council inquired about the connection fee. City Administrator Martens noted it is for the infrastructure for the system. Council discussed the proposed discount for the connection fee. City Administrator Martens noted the difference between the current process and the proposed options as the current ordinance does not address mobile home parks. Council discussed whether to allow a different fees, impact on low income population, and a comparison between multi-tenant units and single-family homes. MOTION: made by LaFave approve the staff recommendation. (Motion failed for lack of second) MOTION: made by Dejewski, seconded by Thomas to approve staff recommendation without the requirement for water connect by 2028 and to reduce the sewer connect fee to a 50% discount on current connection fees. MOTION AMENDMENT: made by Thomas, seconded by LaFave to amend the motion to have the sewer connection fee to a 20% discount on current connection fees. Council inquired about the amendment. Motion Amendment Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave Nay: Bottema and Keefe (Motion Amendment carried 3:2) Council discussed future connections. Amended Motion Voting Aye: Thomas, Dejewski, and LaFave Nay: Bottema and Keefe (Motion carried 3:2) Council discussed the utility as a business. b. 2018 Budget – Compensation/Benefits City Administrator Martens presented the report outlining the proposed changes to health insurance including moving to a new provider. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Dejewski to authorize staff to withdraw from the Training Resources Solutions Joint Powers Agreement; authorize staff to enter into agreement with a small group market health insurance provider; authorize staff to terminate the City's current Short-term and Long-term Disability contracts; authorize staff to enter into a new agreements for Short-term and Long-term disability contracts. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) City Administrator Martens asked for Council to provide feedback on age banding, increases to stipends, a change to short-term and long-term disability as an employee paid benefit through a stipend, employee contribution to the Health Savings Account, and proposed wage adjustment. Council discussed the term of the contract and pay philosophy. MOTION: made by Bottema, seconded by Keefe to authorize staff to use age banding and establish average insurance rates for employees; authorize staff to establish two stipends for single and non-single coverage basing increase of stipend on 70% (employer)/30% (employee) on increase from 2017 monthly premiums; authorize staff to transfer short-term disability and long-term disability coverage to employee and offer offsetting stipend; authorize staff to stablish 2018 employer contribution towards the H.S.A at $2,800; authorize staff to continue with all other benefits as outlined in 2017; establish 2018 pay plan market adjustment at 3%. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) 13. 2017 Council Schedule City Administrator Martens reviewed the upcoming schedule noting the date change to Monday for the November 20, 2017 meeting. 14. Council Liaison Calendar The Council liaison calendar was not reviewed, but was available in the Council Packet. 15. Adjournment MOTION: made by Keefe, seconded by Dejewski to adjourn. Voting Aye: Thomas, Bottema, Dejewski, Keefe, and LaFave (Motion carried 5:0) Meeting adjourned at 9:35pm. ________________________________ Jessica Beise – City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 6b. Council Meeting: November 10, 2016 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Liability Coverage – Waiver Action Required: Approval Summary: The City is a member of the Minnesota League of Cities Insurance Trust and must decide whether to waive the statutory tort requirements. By not waiving the limits, an individual would not be able to recover more than $500,000 on claims which tort limits apply. Waiving the limits would require extending the limits of liability coverage obtained, and the City could pay more than $500,000 on claims which tort limits apply. In the past several years the City’s policy decision has been to not waive the statutory tort limits. The City Council may choose to review the policy to waive tort limits. Financial/Budget: Additional liability coverage would need to be purchased if the City were to waive coverage. Alignment with Values: This item relates to the following adopted values: EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional, cost-effective, and friendly manner. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY We believe that fiscal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Council Action: Consider a motion to not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. 466.04 and authorize the Mayor to sign the liability coverage waiver form. Attachments: 1. Liability Coverage – Waiver Form AgendaItem 7a-b. CouncilMeeting Date: 11/9/2017 FINANCIALCLAIMS PreparedBy: jrotz CHECKRANGE FUND #500ESCROW CLAIMSAgendaItem: 7a. Paid toAmountProject name 500-20441$ 558.Carson, Clelland & Schreder - Randy OlsenEncroachmentAgreement 500-20420$ 318.Carson, Clelland & Schreder - BassLake Crossing M/IHome17-012 500-20439$ Carson, Clelland & Schreder - BassLake Crossing M/IHomeTurnLanes 17-012 500-20434$ Hoppe, Kevin & Sherri - HoppeLot Consolidation 17-027escrowrefund Total TotalFund #500 = SeeattachedPayments Detail) ALLOTHERFINANCIALCLAIMSAgendaItem:7b.$ 207,345.74$ 210,822.50 TotalChecks Seeattached CheckDetailRegister) TotalofAutoDeductions TOTALEXPENDITURES FORAPPROVAL$ 288,535.71 AutoDeductions / ElectronicFundTransfer / OtherDisbursements DatePaid toAmount 10/23/2017Humanity$ 49.00 10/27/2017ElBurrito Market$ 19.12 10/30/2017FedEx - Water$ 30.08 10/30/2017EB2017Springsted SY$ 150. 11/1/2017WMSupercenter - MapleGrove$ 13.30 11/3/2017Follow theSunVacation - FL$ 291. 10/23/2017MN DeptRev - FuelTax$ 156. 10/26/2017Paychex CGS, Garnish$ 531. 10/26/2017Net Payroll PP22$ 39,471.04 10/27/2017Paychex Fee$ 315. 10/27/2017PERA$ 11,526.13 10/27/2017Payroll Taxes$ 15,584.24 10/30/2017Return ItemNSF$ 350. 10/30/2017Optum - HS A$ 10/30/2017State ofMN - Roth $ 10/30/2017State ofMN - MSRS$ 10/30/2017Return Item NSFFee$ 4.00 11/13/2017CORCO14ABondPayment - Interest$ Total CSBS\\cityhall\\CityHallInformation\\CITYGOVERNMENT\\Council, Commissions & Committees\\CouncilInformation\\CouncilClaims\\2017ClaimsWorkbook 11/03/1710:29AMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 1 Check Detail Register© November2017 Check AmtInvoiceComment 10100 FarmersState Bank Unpaid ACME TOOLS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$134.985333179SUPPLIES Total ACMETOOLS 134.98 Unpaid AMAZONCAPITALSERVICES E100-42100-218 Investigations$530.9817DP-LY3Q-YINVESTIGATIONS Total AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 530.98 Unpaid BEAUDRY OIL COMPANY E100-43100-212 Motor Fuels$208.40850561DIESEL E100-42100-212 Motor Fuels$959.54850562SQUAD FUEL E100-43100-212 Motor Fuels$21.94850562GASOLINE E100-41920-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$73.02850562GASOLINE E100-43100-212 MotorFuels$927.31851045DIESEL FUEL Total BEAUDRYOIL COMPANY 2,190.21 Unpaid BEISE, JESSICA E100-41400-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$126.96110117MILEAGE G100-21709 DependentCareFSAWithhold$237.00110117DEPENDENT CARE FSA G100-21709 DependentCareFSAWithhold$237.00110117DEPENDENT CARE FSA E100-41400-208 TrainingandInstruction$30.00110117TRAINING Total BEISE, JESSICA 630.96 Unpaid BRAUNINTERTECCORP E422-43100-530 ImprovementsOtherThanBldgs$1,231.25B108689DTUTILITY PROJECT - STREET 37% Total BRAUNINTERTEC CORP 1,231.25 Unpaid BURNSRYAN G100-21713 H RAPayable$505.00HRAREIMBUHRA REIMBURSEMENT Total BURNS RYAN 505.00 Unpaid CARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER E100-41600-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$2,502.97103117CIVIL - LEGAL G500-20441 RandyOlsenEncroachment Agree$558.13103117OLSENACCESSENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT E100-42100-304 LegalFees$2,836.72103117CRIMINAL E422-43100-530 ImprovementsOtherThanBldgs$12.95103117DTUTILITY PROJECT - STREET 37% E422-49400-530 ImprovementsOtherThan Bldgs$9.80103117DT UTILITY PROJECT - WATER 28% E422-49450-530 ImprovementsOtherThan Bldgs$12.25103117DT UTILITY PROJECT - SEWER 35% G500-20420 BassLakeCrossMIHome17-012$318.13103117BASS LAKECROSSING M/IHOME 17-012 G500-20439 BassLkCRM/IHome TurnLanes$1,000.00103117BASSLAKECROSSING M/I HOME TURNLANES17- 012 Total CARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER 7,250.95 Unpaid CENTURY LINK E100-45200-321 Telephone$55.90103017LAND LINE763-420-4061 Total CENTURY LINK 55.90 Unpaid CINTAS - 470 11/03/1710:29AMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 2 Check Detail Register© November2017 Check AmtInvoiceComment E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$0.00PUBLIC WORKS TOWELS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$63.85470250548CITY HALLRUGS E100-42100-223 Building RepairSupplies$43.50470250549PDRUGS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$28.61470250550PW RUGS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$61.17470250551CITYHALLRUGS E100-43100-417 Uniforms$163.31470250552PW UNIFORMS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$63.85470253831CITYHALLRUGS E100-42100-223 Building RepairSupplies$43.50470253832PDRUGS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$69.93470253833PW RUGS E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$61.17470253834CITY HALLRUGS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$72.28470253835PUBLICWORKSTOWELS E100-43100-417 Uniforms$163.31470253836PW UNIFORMS Total CINTAS - 470 834.48 Unpaid COMCAST- 902943336 E100-41941-321 Telephone$107.8657637528LANDLINE E100-42100-321 Telephone$107.8657637528LANDLINE E100-43100-321 Telephone$107.8657637528LANDLINE Total COMCAST- 902943336 323.58 Unpaid COMPASSMINERALS E100-43125-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$2,927.30105143SALTSUPPLIES Total COMPASSMINERALS 2,927.30 Unpaid CORPORATECONNECTION E100-41900-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$72.5746483JACKETS Total CORPORATE CONNECTION 72.57 Unpaid DELTADENTAL E100-41400-131 EmployerPaidHealth$30.707072189DENTAL INSURANCE E100-42100-131 Employer PaidHealth$162.757072189DENTALINSURANCE E100-42102-131 Employer PaidHealth$101.357072189DENTALINSURANCE E100-43100-131 Employer PaidHealth$225.757072189DENTALINSURANCE G100-20205 Reimbursements$63.007072189DENTAL INSURANCE - HAMILTON Total DELTA DENTAL 583.55 Unpaid ECMPUBLISHERS INC E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$112.81539871DELINQUENTFEES-PH Total ECMPUBLISHERS INC 112.81 Unpaid EVOLVINGSOLUTIONSINC E100-41951-207 ComputerSupplies$749.0098812LICENSE RENEWAL Total EVOLVINGSOLUTIONSINC 749.00 Unpaid FEHN COMPANIES E100-43100-232 Gravel$539.582057GRAVEL Total FEHN COMPANIES 539.58 Unpaid GOPHERSTATEONE CALL 11/03/1710:29AMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 3 Check Detail Register© November2017 Check AmtInvoiceComment E601-49400-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$40.507100291SERVICE E602-49450-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$40.507100291SERVICE Total GOPHER STATE ONECALL 81.00 Unpaid HOLIDAY STATION STORES E100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$35.0034_01111713PREPAID CARWASH Total HOLIDAYSTATIONSTORES 35.00 Unpaid HOPPE, KEVIN & SHERRI G500-20434 Hoppe - LotConsolid. 17-027$1,600.5017-027ESCROW REFUND Total HOPPE, KEVIN & SHERRI 1,600.50 Unpaid ICMA E100-41300-433 DuesandMemberships$821.265362932018MARTENS Total ICMA 821.26 Unpaid JOTSCOMPUTER SERVICES E100-41951-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$806.2525399CONTRACT SERVICE Total JOTSCOMPUTERSERVICES 806.25 Unpaid KOTHRADE SEWERWATEREXCAVATIN E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$275.0020875KSEWER LINETELEVISING Total KOTHRADE SEWER WATEREXCAVATIN 275.00 Unpaid KUSTOMSIGNALS, INC. E100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$125.00545868PARTS Total KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. 125.00 Unpaid LAMETTI & SONSINC E422-43100-530 ImprovementsOtherThanBldgs$49,331.20PAY 14DTUTILITYPROJECT - STREET37% E422-49400-530 ImprovementsOtherThan Bldgs$7,588.00PAY 14DTUTILITYPROJECT - WATER 28% E422-49450-530 ImprovementsOtherThan Bldgs$14,208.00PAY14DT UTILITY PROJECT - SEWER35% Total LAMETTI & SONSINC 71,127.20 Unpaid LANO EQUIPMENT E100-45200-221 Maintenance Projects$3,500.4002-485012BOBCAT E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$106.9202-485451BOBCAT E100-43100-225 Landscape/DitchMaterials$795.0003-482874BOBCAT Total LANO EQUIPMENT 4,402.32 Unpaid MARTENS, BRAD E100-41300-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$50.00103117CELL PHONE E100-41300-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$37.99103117MILEAGE E100-41300-208 TrainingandInstruction$234.12103117TRAINING Total MARTENS, BRAD 322.11 Unpaid MARTINMARIETTAAGGREGATES E100-43100-232 Gravel$747.3121648297CLASS 2 11/03/1710:29AMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 4 Check Detail Register© November2017 Check AmtInvoiceComment Total MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES 747.31 Unpaid MATTSON, KEVIN E100-43100-321 Telephone$50.00103117REIMBURSEMENTS E100-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$93.09103117REIMBURSEMENTS Total MATTSON, KEVIN 143.09 Unpaid MENARDS MAPLEGROVE E100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$9.9210609MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES Total MENARDS MAPLE GROVE 9.92 Unpaid METRO SALESINC E100-41130-351 Newsletter Expenses$751.46INV913696NEWSLETTER E100-41951-207 ComputerSupplies$1,104.75INV913696SUPPLIES Total METROSALESINC 1,856.21 Unpaid METRO WESTINSPECTION SERVICES E100-42400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)$17,633.611261INSPECTION-2017 G100-20201 Building PermitsPayable$2,038.051261INSPECTION-2016 Total METROWESTINSPECTIONSERVICES 19,671.66 Unpaid MINI BIFF, LLC E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$220.32A-91607Portable Biffs-CityPark West E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$106.62A-92075Portable Toilets - PicnicShelter Total MINIBIFF, LLC 326.94 Unpaid MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$127.25P51038SUPPLIES E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$86.84P51164SUPPLIES Total MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 214.09 Unpaid MORRISELECTRONICS E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$80.0020144095SERVICE LABOR E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$200.0020144102SERVICE LABOR E100-41951-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$300.0020144326SERVICE LABOR Total MORRIS ELECTRONICS 580.00 Unpaid MOTLEY AUTOSERVICE E100-42100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$492.00686UAHBRAKE REPLACEMENT Total MOTLEYAUTOSERVICE 492.00 Unpaid NORTHWESTASPHALT INC E419-43100-303 Engineering Fees$83,731.27PAY1HACKAMORE ROADTURNLANE IMPROVEMENTS Total NORTHWEST ASPHALTINC 83,731.27 Unpaid OFFICEDEPOT E100-42100-200 OfficeSupplies (GENERAL)$38.36972033830001SUPPLIES E100-41941-200 OfficeSupplies (GENERAL)$158.76972033830001SUPPLIES E100-41941-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$54.55972034109001SUPPLIES 11/03/1710:29AMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 5 Check Detail Register© November2017 Check AmtInvoiceComment Total OFFICEDEPOT 251.67 Unpaid OPTUM E100-41941-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$110.50945592H.S.A MAINTENANCEFEES Total OPTUM 110.50 Unpaid PLEAA E100-42100-208 Training and Instruction$40.00STEELMAN-2PLEAAFALLTRAINING SESSION Total PLEAA 40.00 Unpaid RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES E100-41941-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$259.64102317CITY HALL GARBAGE1280351 E100-43232-300 ProfessionalSrvs (GENERAL)$481.59102317MONTHLYRECYCLING E100-45200-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$231.06102317PARKS GARBAGE 11039 E100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$183.45102317PUBLIC WORKS GARBAGE (9100) 12 Total RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1,155.74 Unpaid RECONYX E100-42100-218 Investigations$1,212.22153614HYPERFIRE CELLULAR LICENSE PLATECAMERA Total RECONYX 1,212.22 Unpaid SPRINT E100-43100-321 Telephone$551.71391283315-19CELL SERVICE Total SPRINT 551.71 Unpaid TEAMSTER LOCAL 320 G100-21707 Union Dues$343.44NOV17UNIONDUES/TLDF Total TEAMSTERLOCAL 320 343.44 Unpaid TRANSUNION RISK & ALTERNATIVE E100-42100-218 Investigations$108.903609221-1017SERVICE Total TRANSUNION RISK & ALTERNATIVE 108.90 Unpaid WESTSIDE WHOLESALETIRE E422-49450-530 ImprovementsOtherThanBldgs$45.15799334TIRES E422-49400-530 ImprovementsOtherThanBldgs$36.12799334TIRES E422-43100-530 ImprovementsOtherThanBldgs$47.73799334TIRES E422-49450-530 ImprovementsOtherThanBldgs$5.25799355TIRES E422-49400-530 ImprovementsOtherThan Bldgs$4.20799355TIRES E422-43100-530 ImprovementsOtherThan Bldgs$5.55799355TIRES E100-43100-225 Landscape/DitchMaterials$6.00799708TIRES E100-45200-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$20.00800419TIRES Total WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 170.00 Unpaid XCELENERGY E100-43100-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)$837.09566412515STREET LIGHTING Total XCEL ENERGY 837.09 10100 Farmers StateBank$210,822.50 11/03/1710:29AMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 6 Check Detail Register© November2017 Check AmtInvoiceComment FundSummary 10100 Farmers State Bank 100GENERALFUND$50,996.02 419HACKAMORE UPGRADE (LENNAR)$83,731.27 422DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT$72,537.45 500ESCROWHOLDING FUND$3,476.76 601WATER$40.50 602 SEWER$40.50 210,822.50 CityofCorcoran ConsultantSummary 11/9/2017 NameInvoice DateAmount Due Carson, Clelland & Scherder10/31/17 7,250.95 Landform MetroWestInspection10/26/17 19,671.66 Rolf EricksonEnterprises Wenck Associates Total$ 26,922.61 CSBS\\cityhall\\CityHallInformation\\CITYGOVERNMENT\\Council, Commissions & Committees\\Council Information\\CouncilClaims\\2017ClaimsWorkbook 11/03/1710:24AMCITYOFCORCORAN Page 1 Payments CurrentPeriod: November 2017 BatchName 1117AP01-1 Payment Computer Dollar AmtPosted4,253.75 Refer 30812NORTHLAND TRUSTSERVICESCk# 003437E 11/3/2017 Cash PaymentE 309-47000-610 InterestBOND PAYMENT - INTEREST$4,253.75 Invoice CORCO14A10/27/2017 TotalTransactionDate11/3/2017Due 0Farmers State Bank10100$4,253.75 FundSummary 10100 FarmersStateBank 309D/S-EQUIPMENT CERTS$4,253.75 4,253.75 Pre-Written Checks 4,253.75 CheckstobeGenerated by theComputer 0.00 Total 4,253.75 l vendor: CARSON, CLELLAND &SCHREDER CITY OF CORCORAN i Date: 10-31-17 PAYMENT VOUCHER Address: CARSON,CLELLAND&SCHREDER 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY#305 Payment Total: $ 7,250.95 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55430-2190 Due Date: 11/30/17 Fund Department J Account Description Amount i 100 41600 300 -So`1! CIVIL-LEGAL 2,502.97 I Olsen Access Encroachment Agreement 558.13 100 42100 304 _ CRIMINAL 2,836.72 205 42100 304 VEHICLE FORFEITURE 422 43100 530 DT UTILITY PROJECT-STREET 37%12.95 422 49400 530 DT UTILITY PROJECT-WATER 28%9.80 422 49450 530 DT UTILITY PROJECT-SEWER 35%12.25_ 411 43100 300 PW FLOOR SETTLING 100 41600 300 LENNARfRAVINIA 601 49400 304 WATER- 50% 602 49450 304 SEWER-50% 500 20320 Lennar Design 500 20335 Lennar Engineering __ 500 20389 STREHLER ESTATES 16-01 500 20392 MN Solar 500 20407 MOTOR CAFE CUP F 500 20416 Sunrise Solar 17-007 500 20420 Bass Lake Cross MI Home 17-012 318.13 1 500 20421 Ravinia 7th Addition 5.00 20439 Bass Lake Cross MI Home Turn Lanes 17-012 1,000.00 TOTAL: $ 7,250.95 { EireellNotes Check# 0 1! 1,/ 3cfisio te4P IIIN Carson, Clelland Schreder ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY STE 305 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55430-2190 763)-561-2800 October 30, 2017 OCT 312017 CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 CO RD 116 CORCORAN, MN 55340 Professional Services Amount Civil 9/27/2017 Review City Council agenda packet 142.50 Review property data, conference with Attorney Thames regarding encroachment 52.50 agreement and review past project files 9/29/2017 Correspondence with Administrator, draft moratorium repeal ordinance 71.25 Correspondence with Planner, Administrator regarding open files, title work, update files 35.63 Review Shamrock Golf O&E and send to Brad 29.17 10/2/2017 Correspondence with Code Enforcement Official, Attorney Corlew regarding business use at 35.63 property 10/4/2017 Conference with Clerk, memo to Attorney Thames 17.50 10/6/2017 Review social media policy, conference with Clerk regarding revisions, Data Practices 142.50 request, 429 service issue Conference with Chief regarding County MOU and employment law/MGDPA issues, 95.00 correspondence with County attorney regarding MOU amendments, correspondence with League attorney 10/9/2017 Pull 10/12 City Council agenda, packet for review 23.33 10/10/2017 Conference with Clerk regarding Data Practices disclosure 35.63 10/11/2017 Review City Council agenda packet 142.50 10/12/2017 Review draft warning siren recovery fee ordinance, research City authority issue, conference 106.88 with Director of Public Safety, review code Review previous litigation files regarding prescriptive easement findings, research right of 106.88 user vs. prescriptive easement authority, update file Revise CarFax contract, correspondence with Coon Rapids City Attorney, Buffalo Police 178.13 Department regarding CarFax agreements, update file 10/16/2017 Correspondence with Clerk regarding assessment and notice issue, correspondence with 71.25 Code Enforcement Official regarding open files, update files 10/18/2017 Review feasibility resolution for Larkin Road and Willow Drive, correspondence with 35.63 Administrator Correspondence with Administrator, review correspondence from liquor licensing applicant, 71.25 review state law, city code CITY OF CORCORAN Page 2 Amount 10/19/2017 Conference with Code Enforcement Official regarding properties in violation,abatement 213.75 plans, Council updates, complete research on liquor tasting event and licensing exceptions, correspondence with Administrator regarding encroachment agreement, update files Prepare for, handle conference call with County Attorney regarding Brady MOU and 178.13 employment law/Data Practices issues, further research Data Practices issue, conference with Attorney Ross regarding proposed revisions, draft revised MOU, correspondence with LMC General Counsel regarding liability issues 10/20/2017 Pull 10/26 City Council agenda, packet for review 29.17 Research entity data regarding liquor licensing, outline potential alternative licensing 106.88 procedures, conference with Administrator regarding licensing issue, encroachment agreement negotiation, update files 10/23/2017 Review City Council agenda packet 142.50 Conference with Director of Public Safety regarding CarFax contract, update file, review 47.50 correspondence from Code Compliance Official and Council memo, update files Review correspondence from property owners'attorney, correspondence with Code 71.25 Compliance Official, review CUP status 10/25/2017 Correspondence with Chief, review warning siren ordinance amendments 35.63 SUBTOTAL: 1 o -'416 30° [ 2,217.97] Bass Lake Crossing Easements 9/27/2017 Correspondence with developer, review revised easement descriptions, conference with 71.25 Becky regarding agreement revisions, update file 9/28/2017 Revise easements, review/update legal descriptions, correspondence with City staff 71.25 regarding finalized versions Conference with Attorney Thames, review easement descriptions and updated depictions, 140.00 confirm legals and prepare documents 9/29/2017 Finalize easements, correspondence with Developer, Administrator 35.63 SUBTOTAL: 500-Z."49 [ 318.13] CarFax Contract 10/13/2017 Correspondence with several CarFax partner departments regarding data protocols, revise 285.00 agreement, research data practices, prepare redline draft of contract, correspondence with Chief, Clerk C "`.1 I (,J Db 1 U 0D SUBTOTAL:285.00] Olsen Access Encroachment Agreement 9/27/2017 Research adjacent property information, review records for previous encroachment 237.50 agreement, begin drafting encroachment agreement, correspondence with Administrator, update file 9/29/2017 Draft/revise encroachment agreement 142.50 10/5/2017 Conference with Administrator, revise encroachment agreement 178.13 SUBTOTAL: 558.13] 11b-1-i IOD- 3' CITY OF CORCORAN Page 3 Amount Treptau Purchase Agreement 10/6/2017 Phone conference with Clerk, review file and correspondence with title company regarding 35.00 real estate taxes, email to Clerk, update file_ V:,,_> A SUBTOTAL: 1, ` F, } Li??, , ' 35.00] Criminal 9/27/2017 Review reports, review and respond to emails 32.50AttendmorningandafternooncourthearingsatBrookdale48.75Reviewdiscovery, note file 24.389/28/2017 Review and respond to emails regarding criminal and forfeiture matters 32.50Updatefilesfrom9/27 court hearings 24.38Reviewcityordinances24.38Reviewdiscovery, correspondence with witness, update file 32.50 9/29/2017 Review discovery, note files, correspondence with Attorney Murphy regarding open files 32.50 Correspondence with defense attorney 32.5010/2/2017 Review and respond to emails regarding criminal and forfeiture matters 32.50Preparationofonecomplaint40.00Reviewandpreparefilesfor10/3 hearings 24.38Reviewdiscovery, note file, correspondence with witness 24.38Reviewfiles, prepare disposition letters and notes to files 32.5010/3/2017 Attend morning and afternoon court calendar at Brookdale 24.38ConferencewithAttorneyMurphyregardingopenfile, review discovery 24.38Reviewfiles, prepare files for jury trial 81.25Reviewfilesinpreparationfor10/4 Brookdale calendar 24.3810/4/2017 Review and update files from 10/3 hearings 24.38 Handle calendar at Brookdale court 48.7510/5/2017 Preparation of one complaint 40.0010/6/2017 Telephone conference with attorney regarding probation violation 24.38Reviewpolicereports48.7510/9/2017 Review witnesses and correspondence with Bureau of Criminal Apprehension 24.38Preparationfor10/10 cases 32.5010/10/2017 Review and prepare files for 10/11 hearings 24.38 Conference with Attorney Ross regarding open file 24.38Attendarraignmentsandpretrialhearings81.25Reviewfiles, prepare disposition letters and notes to files 32.5010/11/2017 Attend morning and afternoon court hearings at Brookdale 48.75Preparedispositionletter, dictate memorandums to files and follow up instructions to 24.38 assistants, and select witnesses for upcoming contested matters 10/12/2017 Preparation of two complaints 80.00Updatefilesfrom10/11 hearings 24.38Reviewdiscovery, disclosure issue, note files 24.3810/13/2017 Review and note files, further follow up/updates from 10/11 hearings 24.3810/16/2017 Review discovery, correspondence with witness 24.38ReviewfilesinpreparationforcalendaratBrookdalecourt32.5010/17/2017 Preparation of two complaints 80.00 CITY OF CORCORAN Page 4 Amount 10/17/2017 Preparation for 10/18 cases, review files, review criminal histories in MNCIS and DVS 24.38 Handle court calendar at Brookdale 48.75 10/18/2017 Attend arraignments and pretrial hearings at Brookdale 97.50 Review police reports, update files 32.50 Review police reports and draft letter to police department 48.75 10/19/2017 Conference with Attorney Ross regarding open files, note file 32.50 Discuss memorandum of understanding between City and County with Attorney Thames 24.38 10/23/2017 Review file, correspondence with defense attorney, update file 97.50 Prepare files for 10/24 court hearings 24.38 10/24/2017 Review files in preparation for 10/25 calendar 32.50 Attend morning and afternoon court calendar at Brookdale Courthouse 24.38 10/25/2017 Review Data Practices statute 40.63 Conference with Attorney Ross regarding open files, update files 32.50 Review discovery, update file 24.38 Handle calendar at Brookdale court 130.00 Update files from 10/24 hearings 24.38 Open criminal files, preparation of criminal complaints; preparation of cases for court 196.88 calendars, including court and jury trials; contact and notice to witnesses for trial testimony, prepare outgoing discovery requests, complete incoming discovery requests for monthly period Open criminal files, preparation of criminal complaints; preparation of cases for court 203.13 calendars, including court and jury trials; contact and notice to witnesses for trial testimony, prepare outgoing discovery requests, complete incoming discovery requests for monthly period Open criminal files, preparation of criminal complaints; preparation of cases for court 271.88 calendars, including court and jury trials; contact and notice to witnesses for trial testimony, prepare outgoing discovery requests, complete incoming discovery requests for monthly period SUBTOTAL: lZl'3` 2,772.64] IV' For professional services rendered 6,186.87 Client Expense Charges : Civil O&E reports for Shamrock Golf Course 500.00 SUBTOTAL: 500.00] ` Bass Lake Crossing Easements O&E reports 500.00 SUBTOTAL: 500.00] C 1)0- PU11( -1 CITY OF CORCORAN Page 5 Amount Criminal Expenses: Monthly support fee 16.26 Legal process service fees 24.00WestlawchargesforAugust2382 SUBTOTAL: 0U,Z I°`'r -{ [ 64.08] Total Client Expense Charges 1,064.08 Total amount of this bill 7,250.95 Previous balance 5,878.89 10/20/2017 Payment-thank you 5,878.89) Total payments and adjustments 5,878.89) Balance due 7,250.95 I hereby declare under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing statement for legal services is just and correct and that no part thereof has been paid. 0‘• John J. Thames, City Attorney Joe Rotz From: Michael Pritchard Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 1:15 PM To: Jessica Beise Cc: Joe Rotz Subject: RE:Olsen Encroachment Agreement We have a project file for this and should have a $1,000 escrow. File: 17-031. Thank you, Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official Zoning,Code Enforcement,Permits City of Corcoran 8200 Co Rd 116 Corcoran,MN 55340 Direct Line 763-400-7033 mpritchard@ci.corcoran.mn.us From:Jessica Beise Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 3:21 PM To: Michael Pritchard<mpritchard @ci.corcoran.mn.us> Cc:Joe Rotz<JRotz@ci.corcoran.mn.us> Subject:Olsen Encroachment Agreement Mike, Let's chat about the Olsen Encroachment Agreement when you get in. We've got some legal expenses and want to confirm what's happening.Thanks! 9esrica Beim Cif Clerk/AIdministrative Services Coordinator City of Corcoran-8200 Country Rpa/H6-Corcoran, MN55340 jIeisc Oci,corcoran,mn,us• 763)400-7029 of Corcoran-?{1-tiddin Clem'tlaitin9 7o Be Discovered 1 Vendor: METRO WEST INSPECTION SRV CITY OF CORCORAN Date 10-26-17 PAYMENT VOUCHER Address: METRO WEST INSPECTION SRV BOX 248 Payment Total: $ 19,671.66 LORETTO MN 55357 Due Date: 11/25/17 Fund Department Account Description Amount 100 20201 INSPECTION-2015 100 20201 INSPECTION-2016 1261 2,038.05_ 100 42400 300 INSPECTION-2017 _ _ 1261 17,633.61 20201 I INSPECTION-2016 100 42400 300 INSPECTION-2017 100 42400 300 _MEETINGS & PLAN REVIEWS 100 42400 300 MEETINGS & PLAN REVIEWS 100 42200 300 FIRE MARSHALL INSPECTIONS TOTAL : $ 19,671.66 Approved Notes Check# Alfr30805 EMI Metre West inspection Sendoes,Inc. 689 Medina St, Suite 250 Loretto, MN 55357 US r`" ' QV ks.metrowestp gmail.com t INVOICE OCT 2 6 2017 '` BILL TO BY: E ,2Si City of Corcoran DATE 10/24/2017 8200 County Rd 116 DUE DATE 11/23/2017 Corcoran, MN 55340 TERMS Net 30 ACTIVITY HOURS RATE AMOUNT Ended Pem'dts 1 19,671.66 19,671.66 All finaled permits September 2017 BALANCE DUE 19,67t66 I\ I METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES,INC. Box 248 LORETTO,MN 55357 PH.763-479-1720 FAX 763-479-3090 BILLED TO: City of Corcoran 8200 County Rd 116 Corcoran,MN 55340 Invoke Date October 26,2017 35%Eligible Fees,100%Investigation Permit it Permit Address Mechanical,Plumbing,Plan Total Fees Check,SEC 2016-00023 9015 Schutte Ct 897.86 314.25 2016-00406 6681 Bridle Path 4,835.13 1,692.30 2016-00417 8270 Cain Rd 90.00 31.50 2017-00100 6497 Larkspur Ct 5,904.89 2,066.71 2017-00101 19214 Galloway Cr 4,459.81 1,560.93 2017-00102 19389 Elderberry Ct 5,476.68 1,916.84 2017-00103 19949 Larkin Rd 90.00 31.50 2017-00112 19301 Annanbelle Ln 5,217.94 1,826.28 2017-00116 22815 WagonWheel Ln 864.52 302.58 2017-00135 19401 Elderberry Ct 5,143.64 1,800.27 2017-00151 19077 Galloway Cr 4,146.66 1,451.33 2017-00152 19089 Galloway Cr 4,146.66 1,451.33 2017-00157 19620 Patrick Place 90.00 31.50 2017-00158 6433 Bluestem Cr 4,857.19 1,700.02 2017-00170 10820 Windmill Dr 456.64 159.82 2017-00175 10024 Meadow Cr 90.00 31.50 2017-00189 19319 Bridle Path 318.04 111.31 2017-00198 19740 Schutte Farm Rd 572.14 200.25 2017-00215 7970 Strehler Rd 180.00 63.00 2017-002230 10205 Heather Ln 90.00 31.50 2017-00236 21510 Treeline Dr 90.00 31.50 2017-00240 19237 Paddock Ln 341.14 119.40 2017-00241 10820 Windmill Dr 100.00 35.00 2017-00271 19215 66th Ave N 4,657.39 1,630.09 2017-00275 10185 Highland Ridge Rd 100.00 35.00 2017-00279 19190 Galloway Cr 341.14 119.40 2017-00280 6522 Bridle Path 410.44 143.65 2017-00281 6466 Bridle Path 410.44 143.65 2017-00284 19234 Paddock Ln 433.54 151.74 2017-00297 22675 Co Rd 117 997.84 349.24 2017-00298 19142 Galloway Cr 50.00 17.50 2017-00307 21636 Nystrom Ln 90.00 31.50 2017-00317 9433 Fox Valley Dr 150.00 52.50 2017-00322 6433 Bluestem Cr 15.00 5.25 2017-00323 22741 Wagon Wheel Ln 90.00 31.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page Total 19,671.66 Invoice Total 519,671.0 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. Council Meeting: November 9, 2017 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Commission Representatives Action Required: None – Informational Summary: The advisory commission representatives for the November 9th Council meeting are as follows: Planning Commission: Dean Jacobs Parks and Trails Commission: Deb Regan Financial/Budget: N/A 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. 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 Recommendation N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8b. Council Meeting: November 9, 2017 Prepared By: Kevin Mattson Topic: Public Works Director Three Month Report Action Required: None – Informational Summary: As part of the Public Works Director position, staff set a budgetary goal to reduce billable hours by 5 hrs/week and increase revenue by charging escrow projects at a reduced rate of $65/hr with an average of 10 hrs/week. Included below is a summary of the information for the first three months. Public Works Director - 3 Month Update Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Goal (HR) Actual (HR) Goal (HR) Actual (HR) Goal (HR) Actual (HR) Billable Hours to Escrow 50 47.5 40 43 40 42 Expense Savings 25 26.5 20 24 20 42 Overall, the budget goals were met. Financial/Budget: The escrow revenue to date totals $8,612.50. The expense savings to date totals $8,325.00. 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. 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: 3-Month Council Update Go a l (H R ) A c t u a l (H R ) ( $ / H R ) T o t a l Am o u n t ($ ) G o a l (H R ) A c t u a l (H R ) ( $ / H R ) T o t a l Am o u n t ($ ) G o a l (H R ) A c t u a l (H R ) ( $ / H R ) T o t a l Amount ($) Bi l l a b l e Ho u r s to Es c r o w 5 0 4 7 . 5 6 5 . 0 0 $ 3, 0 8 7 . 5 0 $ 40 4 3 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2, 7 9 5 . 0 0 $ 40 4 2 6 5 . 0 0 $ 2,730.00$ 8,612.50$ Ex p e n s e Sa v i n g s 2 5 2 6 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 $ 2, 3 8 5 . 0 0 $ 20 2 4 9 0 . 0 0 $ 2, 1 6 0 . 0 0 $ 20 4 2 9 0 . 0 0 $ 3,780.00$ 8,325.00$ To t a l 5 , 4 7 2 . 5 0 $ 4, 9 5 5 . 0 0 $ 6,510.00$ Au g ‐17 S e p ‐17 O c t ‐17 Pu b l i c Wo r k s Di r e c t o r ‐ 3 Mo n t h Up d a t e STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8c. Council Meeting: November 9, 2017 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Sub-watershed Assessment Meeting Action Required: None – Informational Summary: A study is underway to assess the existing water quality conditions of the Rush Creek Headwaters and to identify best management practices and potential projects along the creek corridor. Prior to the completion of the study, staff is scheduling a meeting and sending invitations to property owners living within the watershed area. Staff is in the process for finalizing the date of the meeting which is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, December 7th at 5:30 pm. Members from the watershed have been invited and are expected to be in attendance to answer any questions residents have related to the project. Financial/Budget: It is anticipated that the mailing of the meeting invitations will cost approximately $250. 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. 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 Recommendation N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: Study Area 4 The Study Area. Yellow dots with labels are 2017 monitoring locations. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11a. Council Meeting: November 9, 2017 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Solicitors, Peddlers, Transient Merchants Ordinance Component Review Action Required: Direction Summary: Cities are granted authority to regulate solicitors, peddlers and transient merchants within the City (Minn. Stat. 412.221, subd. 19). Many of cities including many of our surrounding communities including Medina, Plymouth, Maple Grove and Wayzata all have ordinances regulating peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants. In late 2015 Council showed support in drafting language for an ordinance regulating solicitors, peddlers and transient merchants with the City of Corcoran. Staff has begun the ordinance review process is requesting additional direction on Council on the following topics before incurring City Attorney expenses: Should the City regulate the use of food trucks? o If so are there any specific restrictions envisioned? Should the ordinance exempt food stands and farmers markets? Should the fee schedule exempt the fee for Corcoran based businesses for soliciting or peddling goods? Should the City provide or sell “No Solicitation” signs? As the topic of regulating these activities is quite complex, attached is a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities outlining the topic. Financial/Budget: The creation of the ordinance is a budgeted expense in legal. Additions to the fee schedule would be suggested for licensing individuals and organizations. 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. Page 2 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 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 8/30/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved 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 model 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 2 • Canvassers. • Advocates. • Itinerant vendors. • Hucksters. • Proselytizers. • Door-to-door salespersons. • Drummers. • Missionaries. See Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 3 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 4 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 5 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 6 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, City Licensing. Handbook, City Regulatory Functions. 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 7 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). Working America v. City of Bloomington, 2015 WL 6756089 ---F. Supp.3d --- (8th Cir. 2015). 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). 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 8 ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1983). Time restrictions should be content neutral (applying to all door-to-door calls and narrowly tailored to fit the city’s interests). Working America v. City of Bloomington, 2015 WL 6756089 ---F. Supp.3d --- (8th Cir. 2015). 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 9 D. Licensing—authority See Handbook, City Licensing. 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 10 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 11 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 12 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 13 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 14 • 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 15 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 16 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 17 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, Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances. 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 18 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 Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. 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 Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 19 B. Licenses in general Handbook, City Licensing. 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 20 Handbook, City Licensing. 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 Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. 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, City Licensing. 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 Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. • 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 21 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 22 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, City Licensing. 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 23 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. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 24 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: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 25 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: 8/30/2017 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 26 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. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11b. Council Meeting: November 9, 2017 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Draft 2018 Water and Sewer Budgets Action Required: Direction Summary: Attached to this report are draft 2018 budgets for the water and sanitary sewer funds. The budgets assume the following: 50 new homes Residential water usage of based upon average use Residential sanitary sewer usage based upon winter usage Connections from the downtown utility and street improvement project beginning in 2018 Staff requests the City Council provide any feedback prior to adopting the budget at the December 14, 2017 meeting. Due to the limited experience with the system, it is likely that budget variances will occur. Financial/Budget: The Water and Sanitary Sewer Funds are enterprise funds and must cover their costs over time without subsidy from the general fund. It is anticipated n the near term that revenues will be lower than expenditures until additional in-fill development occurs. 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. Direct staff to complete the draft budgets as presented. 2. Direct staff to make changes to the draft budgets. Recommendation: Direct staff to complete the draft budgets as presented. Page 2 Council Action: Provide direction to staff on the draft water and sanitary sewer budgets. Attachments: 1. Water Fund – 2018 Draft Budget 2. Sanitary Sewer Fund – 2018 Draft Budget WATER FUND 2018 DRAFT BUDGET REVENUE ActCode Account Descr 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual 2016 Budget Total 2016 2017 Budget Total 2017 2018 Budget Comment 601-49400-36202 R 601-49400-36202 Developer Contribution $530,000.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-36210 R 601-49400-36210 Interest Earnings $2,776.99 $0.00 $897.58 $1,000.00 $1,786.05 $1,000.00 $1,219.79 $1,200.00 601-49400-36233 R 601-49400-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $418.27 $0.00 $1,578.51 $0.00 601-49400-37100 R 601-49400-37100 Hydrant Sales $0.00 $582.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-37110 R 601-49400-37110 Water Residential Usage $0.00 $0.00 $2,199.26 $11,050.00 $19,829.64 $26,250.00 $22,490.32 $52,500.00 140 homes at $375 (117,000 gallons/year - 3 mo at 15,000; 9 mo at 8,000) 601-49400-37120 R 601-49400-37120 Water Commercial/Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $341.44 $0.00 $368.15 $0.00 $384.66 $365.00 601-49400-37130 R 601-49400-37130 Water Trunk Charges $63,457.00 $128,750.00 $132,767.00 $159,150.00 $322,162.00 $151,631.00 $123,695.00 $141,625.00 25 acres platted at $5,665/acre 601-49400-37150 R 601-49400-37150 Water Access Charges (WAC)$50,000.00 $72,400.00 $0.00 $15,450.00 $58,642.00 $41,081.00 $37,066.00 $56,300.00 50 new homes at $1,126 601-49400-37160 R 601-49400-37160 Water Penalties $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-37170 R 601-49400-37170 Water Meters $0.00 $6,600.00 $9,621.99 $9,900.00 $15,700.00 $8,675.00 $10,976.53 $12,375.00 50 new homes with water meters $247.50 each 601-49400-37180 R 601-49400-37180 Water Install/Inspect Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-37190 R 601-49400-37190 Maple Grove Connection $0.00 $0.00 $68,370.00 $63,900.00 $350,049.00 $108,314.00 $79,555.00 $117,500.00 50 new homes @ $2,350 each subject to change 601-49400-39200 R 601-49400-39200 Transfer from Other Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-39700 R 601-49400-39700 Capital Contributions Gov Act $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $646,233.99 $208,332.00 $364,197.27 $260,450.00 $768,955.11 $336,951.00 $276,965.81 $381,865.00 EXPENSE ActCode Account Descr 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual 2016 Budget Total 2016 2017 Budget Total 2017 2018 Budget Comment 601-49360-720 E 601-49360-720 Operating Transfers ($125,886.80)$0.00 $0.00 $30,950.50 $0.00 $81,061.50 $0.00 $96,435.50 Payment to general fund for staf time 601-49400-100 E 601-49400-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)$0.00 ($9,900.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-110 E 601-49400-110 Overtime $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-121 E 601-49400-121 PERA $0.00 ($718.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-122 E 601-49400-122 FICA $0.00 ($614.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-126 E 601-49400-126 Medicare $0.00 ($144.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-130 E 601-49400-130 Employer Paid FSA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-131 E 601-49400-131 Employer Paid Health $0.00 ($2,457.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-132 E 601-49400-132 Medical Cafeteria Plan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-133 E 601-49400-133 Employer Paid H S A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-134 E 601-49400-134 Employer Paid HRA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-200 E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)$0.00 ($100.00)$0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 601-49400-208 E 601-49400-208 Training and Instruction $0.00 ($1,000.00)($50.00)$1,000.00 $907.33 $1,000.00 $1,030.00 $1,060.00 601-49400-210 E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$0.00 ($1,000.00)($81.20)$1,000.00 $1,947.45 $1,000.00 $1,841.02 $6,900.00 $5,000 towards storz retrofit plan 601-49400-212 E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels $0.00 ($800.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Formula or $0 601-49400-215 E 601-49400-215 Water Meters $0.00 ($10,000.00)($11,515.09)$9,000.00 $14,307.34 $7,875.00 $11,067.23 $15,193.00 50 meters at $303.86 each 601-49400-216 E 601-49400-216 Chemicals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-220 E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-300 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)($440.00)($5,000.00)($1,260.00)$2,500.00 $718.85 $2,500.00 $833.45 $1,300.00 601-49400-303 E 601-49400-303 Engineering Fees $0.00 ($5,000.00)($17,477.39)$5,000.00 $2,622.40 $5,000.00 $9,221.90 $12,296.00 601-49400-304 E 601-49400-304 Legal Fees $0.00 ($500.00)($116.62)$500.00 $457.19 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 601-49400-310 E 601-49400-310 Other Professional Services ($167.20)($17,300.00)($8,250.00)$16,500.00 $117,790.00 $94,029.00 $8,250.00 $94,029.00 Pass through $82,250 subject to change; $11,779 payment for DT MG agreement 601-49400-311 E 601-49400-311 Water Purchased $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $20,160.00 $30,048.63 $39,403.00 21,298,918.92 used at $1.85/1,000; 2,129,891.89 unbillable assumes 10% of total billed 601-49400-321 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $0.00 ($160.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-352 E 601-49400-352 General Notices and Pub Info $0.00 ($100.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-360 E 601-49400-360 Insurance (GENERAL)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $1,566.50 $1,600.00 $268.00 $1,648.00 601-49400-364 E 601-49400-364 Workers Comp Insurance $0.00 ($519.42)$0.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-380 E 601-49400-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)($110.23)($480.00)($87.35)$250.00 $404.19 $600.00 $512.78 $650.00 601-49400-400 E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Cont (GENERAL)$0.00 ($1,500.00)$0.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 601-49400-420 E 601-49400-420 Depreciation ($31,140.02)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-433 E 601-49400-433 Dues and Memberships $0.00 ($1,000.00)($275.00)$1,000.00 $275.00 $1,000.00 $275.00 $1,000.00 601-49400-510 E 601-49400-510 Land $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-520 E 601-49400-520 Buildings and Structures ($300,000.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-530 E 601-49400-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $0.00 $0.00 $28,115.04 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-550 E 601-49400-550 Motor Vehicles $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-570 E 601-49400-570 Office Equip and Furnishings $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-580 E 601-49400-580 Other Equipment $0.00 ($25,000.00)($7,855.69)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 601-49400-610 E 601-49400-610 Interest ($15,811.00)$0.00 ($52,659.00)$52,668.00 $56,567.01 $59,714.00 $45,668.76 $63,279.00 57% of 2014B (104,575 *.57); 2016A per schedule (6,440 * .57) 601-49400-611 E 601-49400-611 Bond Issuance Costs ($56,923.00)($43,830.00)$0.00 $48,450.00 $0.00 $76,950.00 $0.00 $88,350.00 57% of Principal 2014B (135,000 * .57); 2016A per schedule (20,000 * .57) 601-49400-720 E 601-49400-720 Operating Transfers $0.00 ($2,800.00)$0.00 $0.00 $30,950.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL ($530,478.25)($129,922.42)($71,512.30)$177,918.50 $228,513.76 $355,089.50 $109,016.77 $424,143.50 $1,176,712.24 $338,254.42 $435,709.57 $82,531.50 $540,441.35 ($18,138.50)$167,949.04 ($42,278.50) SEWER FUND 2018 DRAFT BUDGET REVENUE ActCode Account Descr 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual 2016 Budget Total 2016 2017 Budget Total 2017 2018 Budget Comment 602-49450-36210 R 602-49450-36210 Interest Earnings $1,921.52 $0.00 $405.22 $600.00 $732.84 $600.00 $411.59 $600.00 602-49450-36233 R 602-49450-36233 Refunds/Reimbursements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-37210 R 602-49450-37210 Sewer Residential $0.00 $1,004.00 $1,608.04 $16,100.00 $26,187.96 $37,800.00 $29,443.82 $75,600.00 140 homes, at $540; 8,000 gallons per month 602-49450-37220 R 602-49450-37220 Sewer Commercial/Industrial $0.00 $0.00 $21.63 $0.00 $669.94 $0.00 $592.43 $500.00 602-49450-37230 R 602-49450-37230 Sewer Trunk Charges $43,849.50 $77,750.00 $80,175.80 $96,100.00 $194,525.20 $101,033.00 $94,896.00 $95,275.00 25 acres platted at $3,811/acre; 602-49450-37260 R 602-49450-37260 Sewer Penalties $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-37270 R 602-49450-37270 Sewer Access Charges-Met Coun.$50,000.00 $82,000.00 $67,095.00 $90,000.00 $124,250.00 $128,056.00 $86,975.00 $180,550.00 50 new homes with SAC $2,485 each; 50 city charges @ $1,126 602-49450-37275 R 602-49450-37275 Sewer Access Charges-City $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $58,642.00 $0.00 $3,183.00 $0.00 602-49450-37280 R 602-49450-37280 Sewer Install/Inspect Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-39200 R 602-49450-39200 Transfer from Other Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-39700 R 602-49450-39700 Capital Contributions Gov Act $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $95,771.02 $160,754.00 $149,305.69 $202,800.00 $405,007.94 $267,489.00 $215,501.84 $352,525.00 EXPENSE ActCode Account Descr 2014 Actual 2015 Budget 2015 Actual 2016 Budget Total 2016 2017 Budget Total 2017 2018 Budget Comment 602-49360-720 E 602-49360-720 Operating Transfers ($125,886.79)$0.00 $0.00 $30,950.50 $0.00 $81,061.50 $0.00 $96,435.50 Payment to general fund for staff time 602-49450-100 E 602-49450-100 Wages and Salaries (GENERAL)$0.00 ($9,900.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-110 E 602-49450-110 Overtime $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-121 E 602-49450-121 PERA $0.00 ($718.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-122 E 602-49450-122 FICA $0.00 ($614.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-126 E 602-49450-126 Medicare $0.00 ($144.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-130 E 602-49450-130 Employer Paid FSA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-131 E 602-49450-131 Employer Paid Health $0.00 ($2,458.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-132 E 602-49450-132 Medical Cafeteria Plan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-133 E 602-49450-133 Employer Paid H S A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-134 E 602-49450-134 Employer Paid HRA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-200 E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies (GENERAL)$0.00 ($100.00)$0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 602-49450-208 E 602-49450-208 Training and Instruction $0.00 ($1,000.00)($50.00)$1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $508.00 $1,000.00 602-49450-210 E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)$0.00 ($1,000.00)($23.74)$1,000.00 $1,140.55 $1,500.00 $259.28 $1,500.00 602-49450-212 E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels $0.00 ($800.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-216 E 602-49450-216 Chemicals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-300 E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)($440.00)($5,000.00)($1,260.00)$5,000.00 $412.50 $5,000.00 $412.50 $5,000.00 602-49450-303 E 602-49450-303 Engineering Fees $0.00 ($5,000.00)($1,845.25)$5,000.00 $8,396.10 $5,000.00 $6,398.66 $8,500.00 602-49450-304 E 602-49450-304 Legal Fees $0.00 ($500.00)($73.38)$500.00 $457.19 $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 602-49450-310 E 602-49450-310 Other Professional Services $0.00 ($82,441.00)($66,424.05)$74,550.00 $130,437.65 $86,975.00 $81,184.95 $124,250.00 50 SAC charges paid to MCES $2,485 each 602-49450-312 E 602-49450-312 MCES Sewage Treatment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $443.11 $16,262.00 $3,987.99 $13,556.00 ($13,556 per Met Council) 602-49450-321 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $0.00 ($160.00)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-352 E 602-49450-352 General Notices and Pub Info $0.00 ($100.00)$0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 602-49450-360 E 602-49450-360 Insurance (GENERAL)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $1,566.50 $1,600.00 $78.00 $1,600.00 602-49450-364 E 602-49450-364 Workers Comp Insurance $0.00 ($519.42)$0.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-380 E 602-49450-380 Utility & Services (GENERAL)($103.36)($480.00)($745.80)$1,000.00 $2,200.70 $3,000.00 $2,041.90 $3,090.00 Lift station electric; utility locates 50% of 1,300 at $1 602-49450-400 E 602-49450-400 Repairs & Maint Cont (GENERAL)$0.00 ($1,500.00)$0.00 $1,800.00 $400.00 $1,800.00 $211.86 $1,800.00 602-49450-420 E 602-49450-420 Depreciation ($35,115.34)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-431 E 602-49450-431 Misc Expense $0.00 $0.00 ($151.00)$1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-433 E 602-49450-433 Dues and Memberships $0.00 ($1,000.00)$0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 602-49450-510 E 602-49450-510 Land $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-520 E 602-49450-520 Buildings and Structures $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-530 E 602-49450-530 Improvements Other Than Bldgs $0.00 $0.00 ($26,271.28)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-550 E 602-49450-550 Motor Vehicles $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-570 E 602-49450-570 Office Equip and Furnishings $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-580 E 602-49450-580 Other Equipment $0.00 ($25,000.00)($5,861.60)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 602-49450-610 E 602-49450-610 Interest $0.00 $0.00 ($40,591.00)$39,732.00 $50,388.46 $52,461.00 $44,531.26 $55,283.00 43% of 2014B(117,925 * .43); 2016A per schedule (10,640 *.43) 602-49450-611 E 602-49450-611 Bond Issuance Costs ($43,951.00)($50,420.00)$0.00 $36,550.00 $0.00 $38,786.00 $0.00 $70,950.00 43% of Principal 2014B (135,000 * .43); 2016A per schedule (30,000 * .43) 602-49450-720 E 602-49450-720 Operating Transfers $0.00 ($2,800.00)$0.00 $0.00 $30,950.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($205,496.49)($191,654.42)($143,297.10)$200,282.50 $226,793.26 $296,145.50 $139,614.40 $384,664.50 $301,267.51 $352,408.42 $292,602.79 $2,517.50 $178,214.68 ($28,656.50)$75,887.44 ($32,139.50) STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11c. Council Meeting: November 9, 2017 Prepared By: Director Matt Gottschalk Topic: Emergency Communication Systems Fee Ordinance Action Required: Direction Summary: With the growth that the City is currently experiencing staff has identified a need for additional outdoor warning sirens in the near future. The sirens will be necessary to cover City amenities, outdoor recreation spaces, and higher density neighborhoods that experience outdoor gatherings. The City does not currently have a plan in place to fund emergency communication systems or outdoor warning sirens and the costs can easily exceed $30,000 for a single warning siren location. Since the need for these new emergency communication systems are the direct result of new construction, staff is recommending a funding mechanism tied to new residential construction building permits in order to fund them. The City of Rogers adopted a similar code in 2007 and it has been successful. The City would still pursue partnerships with developers to help fund the projects when possible. Commercial and industrial properties have not been included in the draft ordinance because they do not typically contain public outdoor gathering spaces but could be an optional addition at the Council’s discretion. The City has also recently been informed of an upcoming software update that may require two of the existing outdoor warning sirens be updated within the next three years. If this ordinance is adopted, and the fund is created, it would most likely not support the upcoming update to the existing equipment yet. Since the City does not currently have a method in place to fund Emergency Communication Systems, any additions or updates to the systems would need to be examined and funded on a case by case basis. Once the fund is well established it would presumably offset a good portion of the preventative maintenance, update, and new installation costs as they are incurred. Staff is recommending a tiered fee structure be added to the City fee schedule to support the ordinance. The recommended fee structure is consistent with what the City of Rogers currently charges: Emergency Communication Systems Fee (Per Ordinance 40.09) Per Single Residential Unit $100.00 Up to 4 Units $200.00 Up to 10 Units $500.00 For Any Number of Units Above 10 Units $1,000.00 Staff Report—November 9, 2017 Council Meeting Prepared by Director Gottschalk Page 2 Over time adjustments can be made depending on whether or not the fund is meeting the needs of the City. Financial/Budget: This would take a small amount of staff time and minor publication expenses to implement. Implementation of this ordinance should help mitigate or prevent future funding issues in supporting the City’s Emergency Communication Systems. 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. 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. TREATING THE CITIZEN AS OUR CUSTOMER We believe that citizens are our customers and should be treated with courtesy, respect, and deserve the best services we can provide. Options: 1. Direct staff to proceed with steps towards ordinance adoption as drafted. 2. Direct staff to proceed with steps towards ordinance adoption with specified changes. 3. Decline to adopt an Emergency Communications Systems Fee ordinance. Recommendation: 1. Direct staff to proceed with steps towards ordinance adoption as drafted. Council Action: Provide staff with direction to either proceed with the Emergency Communications Systems Fee ordinance as drafted, proceed with the Emergency Communications Systems Fee ordinance with specified changes, or decline to proceed with the ordinance. Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance 40.09: Emergency Communication Systems Fee. Subd. 1. Purpose. This section is adopted to ensure that adequate emergency communication systems and early warning sirens are provided to meet the additional need created by new development within the city. It is believed by the city council that emergency communication systems and early warning sirens are instrumental in providing for the health, safety and welfare of the community. Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the term "structure" means any newly constructed residential house or multiple residential complexes. Additions to previously built structures are not required to pay the fee required in this article. Subd. 3. General requirements. A. Payment amount. Any applicant for a residential building permit, single - family or multiple-family, for the construction of a new structure w ithin the city shall pay a one -time emergency communication systems fee to be collected with the building permit; the fee shall be as established by ordinance. B. Use of funds. All payments made under this article shall be designated and used exclusively for the acquisition, development, expansion, upgr ading or maintenance of emergency communication systems or emergency sirens within the city. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 11d. Council Meeting: November 9, 2017 Prepared By: Brad Martens Topic: Public Works Maintenance Operator Recruitment Action Required: Approval Summary: Public Works Maintenance Operator Darcy Wandersee has provided his resignation and is taking a new opportunity with Hennepin County Public Works. It is requested the City Council authorize the City Administrator to begin the recruitment process with the following anticipated timeline: Post position: November 13th Applications due: December 1st First round interviews: Week of December 11th Second round interviews: Week of December 18th Conditional offer: December 28th First day of employment: January 22nd Financial/Budget: This is an existing position and is included in the 2017 and 2018 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. Options: 1. Authorize the City Administrator to begin the recruitment process for the position of Maintenance Operator. 2. Send back to staff for further review. Recommendation Authorize the City Administrator to begin the recruitment process for the position of Maintenance Operator. Council Action: Consider a motion to authorize the City Administrator to begin the recruitment process for the position of Maintenance Operator. Attachments: 1. Job Description – Maintenance Operator PW MAINTENANCE OPERATOR ©City of Corcoran 2015 1 Department: Public Works Reports To: PW Superintendent Points: 228 Grade: 7 FLSA: Non-Exempt Bargaining Unit: NA Revision Date: June, 2015 Job Summary: The Public Works Maintenance Operator provides maintenance of roads, drainage, wastewater and surface water collection, water distribution, equipment maintenance, parks and buildings. The Maintenance Operator performs heavy equipment operation, operation of power tools and physical labor as needed. Scope of Impact: The PW Maintenance Operator is responsible for providing public service and for preservation of public assets through timely attention to problems and careful operation, including attention to safety procedures. Essential Duties and Responsibilities: • Performs assigned work in an efficient and safe manner. o Follows all safety procedures according to industry best practices and state and federal regulations; follows all City and Department policies; o Strives to learn and gain proficiency in a broad variety of equipment operation; o Performs work in a manner that protects public and private assets; o Responds immediately to problems with sewer or water; identifies problems and, after taking action to mitigate further damage; confers with the Superintendent or Crew Leader on follow-up action; o Monitors weather conditions and is alert for possible early call-in to address snow, ice or flooding; o Suggests improved methods and practices for public works when experience and common sense dictates. • Operates appropriate equipment to clear brush, install culverts, mow grass, remove silt and other drainage obstructions, patch potholes, erect signs, repair frost boils, remove and replace concrete curbs and asphalt roadways and other duties relating to park and roadway maintenance. o Blacktop work will include sub cutting, removal, installation, compaction of asphalt, and seal coating; o Concrete work will include removal of concrete, forming, curb pouring, and finishing; City of Corcoran PW MAINTENANCE OPERATOR ©City of Corcoran 2015 2 o Performs right-of-way maintenance to avoid obstruction of view, overhanging trees, clogged ditches and retention ponds; o Drives medium, heavy, and light trucks in order to deliver and pick up materials and supplies; o Operates snow removal equipment in a safe, responsible manner in order to provide a passable condition and maximum safety on public roads and property. • Performs maintenance of equipment and facilities. o Monitors hours on motorized equipment and ensures that manufacturer recommended services are performed; o Inspects equipment at the beginning and end of shifts to ensure safety and readiness of equipment; o Troubleshoots motorized equipment problems and reports observations based on seriousness; o Carries out maintenance of grounds and parking areas at city hall, parks and public works facilities; o Ensures that the public works facility is organized and safe; o Assists with the seasonal opening and closing of park facilities and the maintenance of grounds and active play areas; applies chemicals on park property. • Performs work necessary to maintain the water and sanitary sewer system. o Installs water meters, flushes hydrants; o Shuts off water to properties in emergencies or as directed; o Inspects to ensure that sump pumps are not discharged into the sanitary sewer system; o Assists with lift station maintenance, etc. • Carries out mitigation services for nuisance properties or noxious weeds and reports time and materials used. • Responds to emergencies and natural disasters with equipment. o Works to restore the transportation network so that emergency vehicles can pass; o Assists with support to other communities with joint powers agreements in the event of a natural disaster. • Performs other duties and activities as assigned. Minimum Qualifications: The job requires a high school diploma and two or more years of experience in the operation power tools, trucks and heavy equipment, or equivalent. A Class B CDL is required. At the directive of the Superintendent, to address Department needs, a Class A CDL license with air brakes endorsement must be obtained within six months. A DOT Physical Health Card is required. At the directive of the Superintendent to obtain licenses necessary to operate the water and sanitary sewer system. Additional training post-hire may be required. Ability to respond to emergency calls within 30 minutes. PW MAINTENANCE OPERATOR ©City of Corcoran 2015 3 Desired Qualifications: Additional desired qualifications include experience in a municipal or government setting. Coursework or certifications in civil engineering inspections are preferred. Water and wastewater operation, construction inspection and mechanic training and are preferred. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Required for Successful Job Performance: • Knowledge of equipment used by the department; ability to analyze and resolve problems; mechanical ability and knowledge of equipment troubleshooting and maintenance procedures; • Knowledge of civil engineering principals and road construction procedures; ability to read engineering drawings and to use specialized equipment to read elevations and locate boundaries and right-of-ways; • Knowledge of materials, methods, & operations used in street, building, parks & ground maintenance; • Knowledge of the functions and responsibilities of City Departments, staff, and key community members; • Ability to perform in a professional and courteous manner to requests from other staff members; ability to maintain a positive attitude toward work, the public, and coworkers; ability to be public service oriented with tactful and effective conflict resolution skills; • The ability to work independently; • Knowledge of traffic laws, ordinances, and regulations involved in equipment operation; • Knowledge of water distribution and wastewater collection; ability to read control panels, meters and gauges, to be able to detect when problems are occurring, and respond appropriately; • Knowledge of the occupational hazards and safety precautions necessary to perform manual and maintenance work; • Knowledge of the location of City streets, easements and alleys; knowledge of plow routes; • Knowledge of erosion control and conservation management practices; • Ability to have a creative, inquiring and innovative manner willing to explore new approaches, implement new methods, and be receptive to suggestions of others; • Ability to operate a telephone or radio to communicate effectively with City staff; • Ability to follow oral and written instructions; • Will have a high degree of integrity and a high sense of personal and professional ethics. Physical and Mental Requirements: Physical effort ranges from light to heavy, with lifting, pushing, pulling or carrying up to 60 pounds intermittently. Heavier work may require use of a helper or power equipment. Lifting over 60 pounds without assistance is discouraged and should be a last resort. Plowing snow may require high attention to the road and environment to avoid accidents. Working Conditions: Work is mainly outdoors or in a vehicle. Work includes driving within the City of Corcoran to perform maintenance activities. There is exposure to weather conditions and dirt, grease, noise, biting insects PW MAINTENANCE OPERATOR ©City of Corcoran 2015 4 and unpleasant odors. Some work requires wearing safety apparel. There is exposure to traffic, slippery footing and working close to moving equipment. Work may include extended or irregular hours. 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: ____________________________________________________ City of Corcoran 2017 City Council Schedule Agenda Item 12. November 20, 2017 – 7:00 pm (Monday meeting) Planning Project Update Code Compliance Report Financial Performance Report City Administrator Performance Evaluation Handout Draft 2018 Budget and Levy Schedule 2018 Goal Setting Meeting Comp Plan Land use Discussion December 14, 2017 – 7:00 pm Public Hearing on Budget Adopt 2018 Fee Schedule Adopt Final 2018 budget and levy Improvement Hearing – Willow Drive/Larkin Road Improvement Project December 28, 2017 – 7:00 pm Planning Project Update Code Compliance Report City Administrator Performance Evaluation Financial Performance Report 2018 Fee Schedule Dog Kennel Ordinance Change Recommendations Conditional Offer – Maintenance Operator