HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 04-13-1999 SpecialCOUNCIL STUDY SESSION
APRIL 13, 1999
7:00 PM
Public Safety Training Room
1. Call to Order 7:00 pm
2. Liquor and Tobacco Ordinances 7:00 pm
3. City Court 7:45 pm
4. Policy on Funding Social Services 8:30 pm
5. Citizen Survey 9:00 pm
6. Summer Pool Passes 9:30 pm
7. Establish Future Study Session Date and Topics 9:55 pm
8. Adjourn 10:00 pm
DATE: April 9, 1999
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Summary of Events
Fernbrook Lane Alignment Meeting. About 50-60 people attended the April 5th open
house meeting on the future alignment of Fernbrook Lane north of Schmidt Lake Road to
County Road 47. We have had about 15 response forms turned in, with many favoring
one of the easterly alignments, with the "E" option being mentioned the most often.
There was no little or no support for the "A" or `B" alignments.
Assistant City Manager applications. About 55 applications have been received as of
Friday afternoon, a few hours before the deadline. After reading a number of the early
applications last week, it seems that the majority have little or no public sector
experience. We will begin evaluating the applications next week and our next steps.
An ordinance banning phosphorous from fertilizers used in Plymouth (with a few
exceptions) was approved by the Environmental Quality Committee this week, and is
scheduled for the April 20th Council meeting.
Development issues. After several months without major development projects on the
Council agendas, two significant projects will be going to Planning Commission this
week and likely coming to Council on May
4th: the next Moen-Leuer project on Medina
Road and the Begin Golf Course proposal. The Moen-Leuer project is the first test of the
new "no recommendation at the Planning Commission hearing" procedures recently
adopted.
On the Begin Oaks proposal, we made a request for further review of the trail around
Mud Lake this week. Judy Begin has agreed conceptually to allowing the trail around
Mud Lake to be completed adjacent to the proposed eighth hole of the golf course. Some
of the link through the golf course could be completed as a boardwalk over the more
shallow areas of the wetland, with a screen placed on the side of the boardwalk if needed.
Agenda Number:
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Craig C. Gerdes, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: ALCOHOL & TOBACCO COMPLIANCE CHECK VIOLATIONS
DATE: April 9, 1999 for April 13, 1999 City Council Study Session
1. ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council review the information and direct staff how to
proceed.
2. BACKGROUND: The City Council just completed hearings for administrative penalties
for alcohol compliance check violations that occurred in 1998. During discussions of the
administrative penalties for the license establishments, the presumptive penalties came under
Council discussion. The issue was referred to the April Council study session.
3. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could leave presumptive penalties as they are, make
changes, or eliminate the presumptive penalties entirely and deal with issues individually as
they appear before the Council.
4. DISCUSSION: We will deal with the issues of alcohol and tobacco violations separately as
the State Law and City Ordinance on these issues are entirely different.
The State Law regarding alcohol license violations states that the City Council may impose a
civil administrative penalty of up to $2,000 and/or suspension of the license for a period not
to exceed 60 days or revocation of the license. The only requirements under the State Law
are that the licensee is afforded an opportunity for a hearing and it requires revocation upon
conviction for a felony.
During 1997 the City Attorney and Staff worked with the license holders to update our City
liquor ordinance in its entirety to make it easier to work with. During the discussion of the
ordinance, a presumptive penalty grid was drafted in an attempt to make the penalties more
understandable and establish a standard for the ease of the Council when hearings occur.
This ordinance was adopted by the Council in January of 1998. The recent hearings by the
Council under this section were the first ones under this new ordinance. It was apparent from
discussions and actions by the Council that the presumptive penalty grid may need changing.
First, the presumptive penalty grid does not include the fine. Second, the Council's actions
indicate the standard penalties should be higher than that adopted. And, finally, the
presumptive penalty should be dependent on the type of license held; i.e., on -sale vs off -sale
and intoxicating liquor vs 3.2 beer. Based on the recent hearings by the Council, a new
presumptive penalty grid sample is attached for Council information.
In the tobacco Statute, on the other hand, the State gives a minimum required penalty for
both the license holder and for individuals. The $2,000 fine and/or 60 day suspension or
revocation does apply in all administrative penalties as a maximum.
For licensees, the State Law requires a minimum $75 fine for a first offense, a $200
minimum fine for a second offense within 24 months of the first, and a $250 minimum fine
for a third offense within 24 months of the first.
Our City Ordinance then sets a maximum penalty for a first violation of $500 fine and/or
suspension not to exceed 10 days. A maximum of $750 fine and/or suspension not to exceed
20 days for a second offense within 12 months of the first. A third violation within 12
months of the first holds a maximum fine of $1,000 and/or suspension for a period not to
exceed 30 days. The City of Plymouth adopted our ordinance before the State adopted the
Statute on tobacco. During their process, we testified at the Legislature to allow cities to
adopt more restrictive ordinances as their original bills would have excluded cities from
doing this. We were successful in our efforts and the bill was adopted allowing more
restrictions by cities.
One of the obvious concerns with this is that the City Ordinance compounds violations
within 12 months and the State Statute compounds violations within 24 months. A violation
could conceivably be a second or third violation under State Law, but again be counted as a
first under our ordinance. This was determined not to be a large problem, as our maximum
for a first violation could be up to $500 fine and we could ensure we met the minimums for a
second or third violation ($200 or $250) under State law with this amount.
Another option can also be a designated staff hearing officer for first offenses. The Council
could designate the Public Safety Director to be a staff hearing officer on first offenses,
meeting with the licensee and directing the presumptive penalty. Any violator could request
a hearing before the Council. If the staff hearing officer believes there is substantial
information to deviate from the presumptive penalty the hearing officer would request a
hearing before the Council. All multiple violations or any of the violations requiring
revocation on the first offense would be directed to the Council. The Council would receive
affirmation of hearings by the staff hearing officer with follow-up and public reporting of
both fails and passes resulting from the compliance checks. Copies of the current alcohol and
tobacco 1998 violations grid are attached.
5. BUDGET IMPACT: Any changes to this would not substantially affect the budget. Fines
should be directed to the General Fund and not be directed to specific programs. The
Council goal remains compliance and not the development of a revenue stream. Awareness
and educational programs will remain part of the Public Safety annual budget.
6. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council review the concept of presumptive
penalties for both alcohol and tobacco violations and direct staff how to proceed.
For alcohol, staff recommends that Council either amend the presumptive penalties so that
they are the standard for the majority of cases that come before them, with a grid based on the
type of license; or that the Council eliminate the presumptive grid entirely from the
ordinance. Staff also recommends the option of designated staff hearing officer for first
violations.
For tobacco, staff recommends the Council modify the time considerations for multiple
violations to match State statute and adopt a presumptive penalty. Staff also recommends the
option of designated staff hearing officer for first and second violations.
If the City Council determines they would like to make ordinance changes, Staff will work
with the City Attorney's office to draft ordinance amendments and bring them back to a
regularly scheduled Council meeting. Staff will also notify license holders of the potential
changes and work to educate them on these changes.
z':1
Presumptive Penalties Grid — Alcohol:
The following violations require revocation of the license on the first violation.
Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity.
Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension.
Sale of intoxicating liquor where only license is for 3.2 percent malt liquor.
The following violations fall under this violation grid broken down by type of license.
Sale of alcoholic beverages to under -age persons.
Sale of alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated person.
After hours sale/display/consumption of alcoholic beverage.
Illegal gambling on premises.
Failure to take reasonable steps to stop person from leaving premises with alcoholic
beverages (on -sale allowing off -sale).
Type ofLicense Held 1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation 4th Violation
On -sale intoxicating liquor 500 and 1,000 and 2,000 and Revocation
5 -days susp 10 -days susp 15 -day susp
Off -sale intoxicating liquor 500 and 1,000 and 7 2,000 and Revocation
3 days susp days susp 12 -day susp
On -sale beer and wine 500 and 1,000 and 2,000 and Revocation
5 -days susp 10 -days susp 15 -day susp
Off -sale 3.2 malt 1,000 and 1,500 and 2,000 and Revocation
10 -days susp 20 -days susp 40 -days susp
Any violation not listed in the previous information would be heard by the Council and they
would review all information and circumstances and determine a penalty with the maximum fine
of $2,000 and/or 60 -day suspension or determine the license should be revoked.
Presumptive Penalties Grid – Tobacco
On the tobacco ordinance presumptive grid, we believe two changes should be made; that the
City ordinance should be changed to match the State for how second and third violations are
computed, and that a general presumptive penalty category be added.. Offenses should be
counted as second or third within 24 months of the first instead of the current 12 month. We
would then have the following grid for tobacco offenses:
Offense Minimum (State) Presumptive Maximum (City)
1 S` violation 75 and/or 0 days
susp
250 fine and
5 -day susp
500 and/or 10
days susp
2°d violation (within 24 mos) 200 and/or 0 days
susp
500 fine and
10 -day susp
750 and/or 20-
days susp
3`d violation (within 24 mos) 250 and/or 0 days
susp
750 fine and
20 -day susp
1,000 and/or 30
days susp
4 violation (within 24 mos) None listed----F—Revocation Revocation
Plymouth City Code 1206.22, Subd. B
that there exist substantial reasons making it more appropriate to deviate, such as, but not limited
to, a licensee's efforts in combination with the State or City to prevent the sale of alcohol to
minors. When deviating from these standards, the Council will provide written findings that
support the penalty selected.
B. Presumptive Penalties for Violations. The minimum penalties for convictions or
violations must be presumed as follows (unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive
days' suspension):
Type of Violation P Violation 2rtd Violation 3'd Violation 4' Violation
1. Commission of a felony Revocation NA NA NA
related to the licensed
activity
2. Sale of alcoholic Revocation NA NA NA
beverages while license is
under suspension
3. Sale of alcoholic 3 6 18 Revocation
beverages to under -age
person
4. Sale of alcoholic 3 6 18 Revocation
beverages to obviously
intoxicated person
5. After hours sale of 3 6 18 Revocation
alcoholic beverages
6. After hours display or 3 6 18 Revocation
consumption of alcoholic
beverages
7. Refusal to allow City 5 15 Revocation NA
inspectors or Police
admission to inspect
premises
8. Illegal gambling on 3 6 18 Revocation
premises
9. Failure to take reasonable 3 6 18 Revocation
steps to stop person from
leaving premises with
alcoholic beverages
10. Sale of intoxicating liquor Revocation NA NA NA
where only license is for
3.2 percent malt liquor
co
w
e 3 03 b o,
C
z r 00
O Q O
N
T3 j
y Oi
O N Q
00
O
N
C ooh
C> 0 ``" o o 00 00
69
40,
69cw 0 .
C CrAamianiv
a¢ o ago aa.' aEn
M O O
U b
O
U cC U« f a\
vi
b OO b O
00NO ^ 6^
U b U b 00
N
U b b G
U C
b tz
c+C 0,"' N
ca C, NNNuONO5M N
cq N4..> N
00 O O O O O O O O
O G
OO
ai
O O O O O O O
vs cOC cd
O O
y b b bO b O b b
y ii O\ F G G G
CLn
CG
4
G
O E O
U3 0
O O
a+
O O
a.+ dN O O
a+ C
O OC O O
r.+
O OO O O O OC
O ON' O O O O al+' N O
b O N69 N
pq D\
N
69
D\
rN
O
p+
O3 O
roqN
OOO O 00C O opo0
O
O
o0N
O
N
bD 00 6q
O
00 6N9
i
y O b i
c0 O\ N b cz .-- N
cC 69
y b< ro O O b, ca O O O i
co h N
b i
cC [l- N
b Z
co N
O b
OS
N
O O U a N O N . N 5 N S 5
vz nw avow 3zm00u. 0.004, 0,r- ar-w a
00
00 00
o, 00 00 00 00 00
00 00
o o kn k o O
OU O
p OU O OU O OU O O O, t
c
p
cl co ctl
p 2 0
cc co
cc/1 y N N h tz h f/1 V
Vim]
CC3
M
O NNsz o
m 4-4• Z
dd0pOOpOp OUO
0 u k. Q
O
VGO Oco O
v c w ai ozGo
tr)
co
x
o
Na x4 E- C7 00.1 ct gi xOM fs Cf LL.Q!d
Uy
M1,
O O
00cocoti
HQ Q z as
clf
c
0 o
N tl
U U U
C1 a al GG c:
O
O ti to O
N
b 0
O
DOvOo
O C 69 C O 0 69 O 0
Oy
69 C
p
b .N ojj d U b G 4 Ly 'in 4" GO
O d
0.
y b h N U vUi ^ 9 y• N , y r^N
o. °
in
o anioan.cn
Ln 9 Ln
r. b y Cd > C x C+° 00C> C cQ bw U">'b
o b0C4o
ONc° a, b;
o
a\ In a` r -4.o a,"0 o
C) 9 w,,cs
b o
0 ,.
U
cq
N c N C U G
ce ON ,.
MN4 M L . "T
y
C,4
c
Cn O It b > c°
M fn C
O cd .
M ++: no >
f- cV
cr =+-
O
Ooo
p O O O O
O O
9
S20
y 9 cOG
O
cC O U
O
cOd
O O
r. Mw
ob o o
E
0 o
69 y rrG
0 0 0 0 0. 00 o c o 0 0 0. o N o 0 o p o O
O O O
to 00 GS 0000 b UC 69Ng OO 6N9
O N
C7 ami
W Cl.
C7 a,
cq O N64 N
c0 v N
b O,
00 0 o. cn N d O, i 0C
b O D\ c0
Oi
c
NN
cd " N
N G cdN
dO
Cc
a: N cid
cd
N cqs2 fa
CD
a; V] z W G1. °, W Gr -- W fir . 64 i r N LYi 21. Gr -- W a -- W L, • + W
00
00
O
00
M O
m
h v1
00 00 00 00
M
N 0;
M
N 0o
M
N oo
Z M
00
M
oo
pV
00 00 00 00
O a\ o a, ON o` o, 00o,
as co cri ca
y N y Ny yn tz h h czLn
U S ONV pO q "
U "
Z49
s co d c 3 o o Cd a a 3 0 co
o a°i
a4
a:
a
a '~ aria o z Se H „ a
a: •v
En
o CISj O = o'aCd
a U
Ao
9.. ,.ao
op4P.0V4U
00 d N O
O3j
O
N U0o r i
cq
W d V] H'iC UUP
s. U
a
Q E a
maoa%
4)
a 0
aj
a
W
o a
pA
z o c 1 Gy,
z
x w H
w z N
A W vii a W A x Q w A
OO O tr O H
p N
O O
00C5VI) '' N Ckn ''
O
0 06940' V'i Fr N Q
r N.0
SS Ob0^
64b O
y rn vl (f O0C:
VJ v1 h y y Q
0.itO.V 0r. y
G00.T7r vOi
OU rr W 0 W Cab0o7:3Cb
fC fd fG
O
UCf
U
O
0
U O D
Oh
U -0 OO
O w
U b 0sr
co
O\ ,
cz
O c
Cd
Mw~a G TNo
N
b>'>
CN N
0 0 0 0
c 0 0 c ro
ami
Cd Cd m
E
ani7> anio anic o o°r0
O O O O
o_ o_ 0 0
N O NGos O N6s s N60S04
U
b z
i b OZ
C,4stn
L.N W G,L, LLNLzr L1.rikr ti
Ot— O_
oo
00
tO
kn
O O N 00ON MN
0 0 00
00 Q00 N`0
0
baa
C3
9
A ter cl
cd id Cd t y
N N
0
N
0.
y y
4:
N
cV ,_
fql rn
N
C
O VUr
Fa r i V]
a. C
o z a 0
O m 0 x
5
v v ri N M C
3
O Q
a)>
Op V c 00O AO
MCO
C¢ A o00
QM QUA z 0.1c7N A;4
a
cn
x o
C
w
Cd Q a
0
a w
u A a
CV
O
U
c0
V
d
VC7
O
U
L0
0
L
0
L0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L
L0
L0 L0 L L0 L L
G
Cco
G E G G G C
b b b b b b bfin.
b0
nn+i.4fin. V+)r
L
O
O OO
a+ O OO O O
a+ O O OO O OO O O
r O O OO O OO O OO O OO
O O O
O 64 O69 NOos00
NO69OD
NO6900
a\ NO69
NO6900
NO69
NO69
knNOFAOD
Ioma bA rn I(7)I
OD
per
OD OD
oma ODMN I OD a\ I
Oq I OD 00 I OD 0',I
cC N ti cO M V S O U d cC O\ 0 cd C\ N cO [— 0 cd 00 0 cl 0 a\ 0 Z 0 cO N 0
C 4:rN Np O
avoir, a00iz. aV)i* atnV. a 04. 9L.\oiz. P.oi=.a.11oi3.
4:
a0ok.
A00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00oll 00
M M M M M M M M M Cl)
O
UU
O O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O O O
U
O
UyviMmcGcocdcd
U
td
V
c of R
m id m 03 m m cl CO cl
CL
CDO b
U
S 0 C-4 v
L
0 Z
O
taiv UC N y r ti b. Cl)
vi N4 Z
O
p ONt `dcn
VbO '
l a'
ON
N
O a - G y y
L L N
o p
d
L
o, avii wviic .a cn W) gOM 'nocnN a cn eakn0cn cider W)
y L' C bD a bD L O Crn00cq3A
a
nom
p
a
U C/] G U U c Y b° G d > °o O° U 0
o o w LC13
y
n 5
O co .+
cis w° d o a a a 0° w o° Q. °° cb o cn o o °
rUi
o±
aa
AA O ...
Amo ,
c, I=. 41 O" cn .-.,
0 0
0 N •--, 0 W) ....
pM
O N ,-- 00 ". C) vxi1M q 0
c L ,_,
O O vti 8
O\
0M G
p O
aa ad od Ma U--a.S UMatiUvaxxa,awdMaUo wddMaUMa
0 al a
C
0
Cd p
C
03
y Ucd
co
OL
b
Q
Cd
z U p ti z
cnWwW
A O
Cd
7
x O U
a. w Z A v
c
E
E
0
U
c0
u
Q
U
C
O
O
U
00 0 00OMCf) Lr F r V
y
O 00 4)00
b dcd
A
Cd d s.
o
L O O C . 0 O 0 OO O O
a+ O p O
y 0
p O O O F.. vi
U 14
46oS 46S a
b O N
a ros
Q boo
s
00 a0i woamiamiamib
a s v:! o
l 000Qa,Z arc a otj,cnziJ,
d
A00 00 00 00 00 00 00
yc N N N
r
N N
r
N
O
m
ya: M
W
O O O O O O O
y cUd cUd CO co cl
aci O
per
O O O O O O
m 03coo cn
C13 co tvV)
c U
U y H
L
Cd
v
H t G1. F+ W) N Cbd WN al ItNmN
O V) y W) N h G N v71 N
7W)
N 2
W Vo U o o U o o 0
04
o U o o U o
o c
w . x O c Q o Q x u x 0 a o
F o 0 0 o O O o 0
O C O N O y p a, bpN >,
rA
a
c
C p N s..
rx
Q
Agenda Number: 2,
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: ' Craig C. Gerdes, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: CITY COURT
DATE: April 9, 1999 for April 13, 1999 Council Study Session
1. ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council review the information on City Court and
direct staff on how they wish to proceed.
2. BACKGROUND: At its March 2"d Council meeting, the Council received a
recommendation from the Public Safety Advisory Board in support of a City Court program.
The City Council at that time directed the issue of review of this program to its April study
session.
The City of Minnetonka began a City Court in September of 1995. Plymouth became aware
of the process when Minnetonka's program was up for a 1997 City Achievement Award
through the League of Minnesota Cities.
City Court is an alternative means of enforcing city ordinances. Under the program, the City
determines which ordinances it would like to enforce this way, primarily they are usually
nuisance and housing type violations. The City then issues City Court citations instead of
District Court citations. The alleged violators may either pay the fine established by the City
Council or may request a formal hearing. The City of Brooklyn Park also began a similar
program in October of 1998.
3. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be not to participate in this type of program and
continue charging through District Court.
4. DISCUSSION: During the three year history of the program in Minnetonka (from
September 1995 through September 1998) they issued a total of 85 citations under the
program which averages 28 citations per year. Of the 85 citations issued, 74 paid the
administrative fine and only 11 requested a hearing, which would average 4 hearings per
year.
They list their total costs for the program during the three year period at $1,100 in hearing
officer fees and $865.13 in printing expenses (for citations and booklets); for a total cost of
1,965.13. The City received $8,295 in administrative fines during the period. This would
indicate a yearly budget of $655 for the program and generated annual revenue of $2,765 on
average. The revenue cannot be considered an increase as the same percentage would be
expected to pay the fine if administered a District Court citation.
Brooklyn Park's program is much newer, having just started in October, they only have six
months experience. Their information indicates that repeat offenders have a required
appearance before a hearing officer and individuals cannot just pay the fine. This could
potentially generate more hearings. Their guidelines appear to be much the same as
Minnetonka for how the process works and the types of violations they include in the
program, except that they include their tobacco violations in this program.
If the City desires to allow this type of program in Plymouth, it would require a change to the
City Charter. There was some State Legislation introduced this year which would have
allowed municipalities to instigate City Courts without these changes; however this
legislation was pulled, in part due to strong opposition from District Court judges.
In this discussion of the program, staff would like to point out a few of the pros and cons of
such a program.
In the category of pros, would be the prompt resolution of these types of cases when
compared to District Court; more attention to City detail (District Court judges are not very
familiar with numerous City ordinances), the decriminalization of the offense, and various
options possible for unpaid fines including property assessment, collection agencies, no
approvals, or suspension or revocation of any City license held, and prosecution in District
Court.
Some of the cons of the program include; the program is not supported by Hennepin County
Court and would not have their authority behind it, the added extra layer if necessary to take
a non-compliant offender to District Court (added time instead of reduction), the solicitation
and training of hearing officers, additional paperwork and scheduling by the City for these
cases.
Hennepin County's Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee is beginning discussions of a
Community Court. While not yet fully defined, this County -wide approach may receive
support from the District Courts.
5. BUDGET IMPACT: Using the figures obtained from the experience of the City of
Minnetonka the annual cost would $655 and the anticipated revenue would be $2,765. These
would be dependent on the administrative fines set by Council and the actual numbers of
citations and hearings Plymouth would experience. As noted previously, the anticipated
revenue would not be an increase as we would expect the amount of revenue from District
Court to be down a similar amount.
6. RECOMMENDATION: Staff sees no real harm in the program; however, the opinion and
actions of the District Court may off -set the actual benefit. It may be worth the wait, if the
City, County, and District Court system develop a Community Court together. The City
Council review the information on City Court and direct staff how they would like to
proceed.
Agenda Number:
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Craig C. Gerdes, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: CITY COURT
DATE: February 23, 1999 for March 2, 1999 Council Meeting
1. ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council receive the Public Safety Advisory Board
report regarding a possible City Court.
2. BACKGROUND: The City of Minnetonka started a program establishing a "City Court"
as an alternative means of enforcing their city ordinances. The general types of violations
they have directed through their City Court include animal violations, building code,
food/health code, nuisance, zoning, and other miscellaneous. The program was sent to the
Public Safety Advisory Board for their review.
The Advisory Board received a package of information provided by the City of Minnetonka
on the implementation and working of their program. Some members of the Advisory Board
expressed an interest in attending one of the hearings. In checking with Minnetonka, they
stated that the greatest majority of their cases result in the individuals just paying the fine to
the City and not requesting a hearing. They noted that they only have two or three hearings a
year and only schedule them as requested, so they do not know very much in advance when
they would be having a hearing.
The Advisory Board also received information that the City of Brooklyn Park has recently
started a similar program. We are in the process of obtaining information from them. The
Board also received information on the proposed State legislation which would address these
types of programs. Current information is that it is highly unlikely the legislation will be
approved.
The Public Safety Advisory Board, at their February 18`h meeting, again discussed the issue
of City Court. They made a unanimous motion to send a recommendation to the City
Council Stating they fundamentally support the concept of City Court. The Advisory Board
will continue to put together information on the specifics of the program and its operation
within Plymouth.
3. DISCUSSION: The result of the proposed State legislation will have a significant impact
on how a "City Court" is established. The new legislation, if passed, would not require a
change to the City Charter. The Council may want to schedule a study session in the future
regarding City Court. Timing of that study session should be dependent on the result of the
proposed State legislation. The Public Safety Advisory Board will continue to develop
additional background information regarding City Court.
4, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council receive the report from the
Public Safety Advisory Board regarding City Court. The City Council may also wish to
place the issue of City Court on a future Council study session.
Ila. Ill. 99 THC Iw31 FA.\ ul_ la= .5S:in c.A31PBELL
MAR -02-1999 17:28 MINP1ET0WP LEGNL DEPT -
APPLICATION FOR 1997
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
CITY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
MINNETONKA CITY COURT
1- C8 tegory.
Public Safety, city over 10,000 population.
2. Program Description.
PLIHOUTH PD
City Court is an alternative means of enforcing city ordinances. City Court citations
are issued instead of District Court citations. The alleged violators may either pay the
fine established by the City Council or may request a hearing. Hearings are held before
neutral hearing officers, who are lawyers that neither live nor work in Minnetonka. In
limited situations, a dissatisfied offender may appeal a hearing officer's decision to the
City Council.
3. Strategy (Purpose/Process).
City staff perceived certain problems with using District Court citations to enforce city
ordinances. There was usually significant delay. Judges were not familiar with the
city ordinances. Ordinance violations were over -shadowed by the heavy caseload of
state law violations.
Alleged violators also perceived certain problems with District Court enforcement.
They were labeled as "criminals" for what appeared to be administrative regulations.
If they wanted to contest a citation, they had to take time out of a work day to appear
at court and had to wait for long calendars.
Staff approached the city attorney with the suggestion for an administrative
enforcement program. Recognizing that this was not specifically authorized by state
law, the city attorney took the matter to the Charter Commission to discuss whether
it was a good idea and whether the charter should be amended to specifically authorize
the program. The Commission considered the matter not only from the perspective
of enforcement staff, but also from the perspective of the alleged violators. It relied
on the expertise of certain Commission members, including an administrative law judge
and a former prosecuting attorney.
The primary barrier was how to collect fines if people refused to pay.. The Charter
Commission decided that this should be handled in the following ways:
1
114 1.11 99 THU 111:.12 FA.1 bi_ 1a= »>u I. ArntLL --- rLIJ11!L in rL a
t AR-0?-1999 17:29 hI I NNETpNKA LEGP. Ut? " . _ - -
a. Fines can be assessed against property in Minnetonka if the violation
occurred on the property and the offender was the property owner (by
authority of a charter amendment).
b. No city approvals of any kind can be granted to a violator if fines
remained unpaid.
C. Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending or revoking a license.
d. There will be a late payment fee of 10% for each month.
e. The city may commence a collection action.
f. Failure to pay a fine is a misdemeanor subject to prosecution in District
Court. -
Although the last of these involves going back to District Court which the program is
trying to avoid, the Commission believed that this would be a very small percentage
of the cases and that for the large majority of cases the program goals could be
achieved.
The Commission prepared a proposed charter amendment and an ordinance to
authorize the program. The Council agreed to experiment with the program and asked
the Commission to oversee the implementation.
4. Goals and Objectives.
The program seeks to provide a new mechanism for the enforcement of city
ordinances, that is prompt, fair, and user-friendly.
5. Implementation.
The Charter Commission examined another city's administrative enforcement process
that uses city staff -members as hearing officers. The Commission felt this system
created the appearance of biased decision -makers and that an alternative mechanism
must be "pristine" in its neutrality in order to be accepted by the community. The
Commission decided that the decision -makers had to be independent people who
neither worked nor lived in Minnetonka. They also decided that the decision -makers
should be lawyers because they are trained in interpreting laws and could address any
legal issues that might be raised. They solicited and received over 100 applications
from lawyers willing to serve for a limited fee of $100 for a half day or evening. The
Commission also felt that the City Court should be offered in the evening to be more
user-friendly" for alleged violators.
2
ua UL• 99 THU lu:."}'_ FA.l 612 4.3_ 555o (.ANPBELL --- PLAHL FH PD
VIOR-02-1999 17:29 r i l NNt I Lx a,, -+ l.tL,F u
After the Commission established the parameters and selected the hearing officers for
the new system, the City Council adopted a fine schedule, and staff developed forms
and procedures to implement the program. Staff prepared a booklet explaining City
Court in simple English that is provided to the alleged offender with each citation.
Training sessions were conducted with each of the code enforcement departments,
and written instructions for completing the citation were provided. Feedback forms
were created for the alleged violator, the code enforcement officer, and the hearing
officer to gather information evaluating the program. General articles regarding City
Court were included in the city's community newsletter and the local newspaper. The
program started operating in September 1995.
5. Budget.
Expenses to begin the program totaled $369.48 for printing of booklets and citations.
From the program's inception in September 1995 through March 1997, fine revenues
have totaled $5650.00, with direct expenses of $1465.13. Direct expenses have
been in two categories: $600 for hearing officer fees and $865.13 for printing.
Indirect expenses for staff administration have been easily covered by the difference
between revenues and expenses.
7. Results/Evaluation/Applicability to Others.
Through March 1997, there have been a total of 51 cases processed in Minnetonka
City Court. Only six have requested hearings. There have been no appeals to the City
Council. Types of violations have been:
Animal 11
Building code 13
Food/health code 11
Miscellaneous 3
Nuisance 5
Zoning 8
Citizens, staff members, and hearing officers have uniformly rated the program
positively. The City Court program has provided a prompt and fair mechanism for
enforcing city code violations. It is a more user-friendly system for citizens, offering
evening hours and avoiding the "criminal" label. It has paid for itself.
Cities of all sizes could implement the program. It may be particularly appropriate for
a small city that does not have its own police department. The City Council could
adopt an ordinance to authorize non -sworn staff members to issue a city court citation
for ordinance violations.
3
Ua Ul'99 THU 1u: 1:3 FAX lilt 952 5550 CAMPBELL --- PLYMOUTH PE) nUti
1 U= P-02-1994 17: 29 rl t taut t U(,Q1,)-'4 L-CU"L ucr I . -1- ..
8. Summery Statement.
Minnetonka City Court is an alternative means of enforcing city ordinances. City Court
citations are issued instead of District Court citations. The alleged violators may either
pay the fine established by the City Council or may request a hearing. Hearings are
held before neutral hearing officers, who are lawyers that neither live nor work in the
community.
The City Court program has provided a prompt and fair mechanism for enforcing city
code violations. It is a more user-friendly system for both staff and citizens, and it has
paid for itself.
2
14 01 99 THL 1n: 3.3 FAN 61-' 1 aa7u (—AMFbtLL --- rL1n1ALH ru Lo (.11.17
MGP. -02-1 q4q 1 i 9 rl I NNE T U(,W,H LtUHL L't.r' I o i c ; oc- o . vv• w
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: KATE MAGREW, CITY CLERK
FROM: KATHY MCCULLUM, ADMINISTRATIVE. COORDINATOR/DEPUTY CITY
CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY COURT PROGRAM
CITATIONS ISSUED _
Listed below are the City Court citations issued from September, 1995 to the present.
HEARINGS, COSTS, AND FINES
Eleven City Court hearings have been held. The City has incurred a total of $1,100.00
in hearing officer fees and $865.13 in printing expenses for the program. The City has
received $8,295.00 in fines since the program began.
N'\wPtCO V::7LN£POgT6
TOTAL P.06
lr 1 olafibn»/Ga2epvry ' :-J11tam'bet-o:,CitaBorhsXs$Ued
Animal 14
Building, Plumbing, Electrical 15
Health 20
Nuisance 17
Zoning 16
Miscellaneous 3
TOTAL: 85
HEARINGS, COSTS, AND FINES
Eleven City Court hearings have been held. The City has incurred a total of $1,100.00
in hearing officer fees and $865.13 in printing expenses for the program. The City has
received $8,295.00 in fines since the program began.
N'\wPtCO V::7LN£POgT6
TOTAL P.06
CITY OF BROOKLYN FK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:31 No.007 P•02
amm
430' •
t. :1 O
aTao
rl:: ••. .= i.. ,x f• key ,:t,.r'. 1'', MA.
t .t ``77 A •w` ',. j.1 1 r •Lt.+. !j 3.k}S•,t:r:'. •s'
71P.
r •
rr :. .
i•r ,', ' SC rr r. •, +,r .a. •. kr"' .•lj '• .(,' -
t•, 4Eyf'''. s "
yAl , :a-•1r..r' t I r;.?iia' ya J r..s..:• ,.1:
r !'i 4ii .;J:) ' .i ,. ..:'.,i I'tr •1
bv:..: '••.'{ .pa'?i• •. '1.1'Y:,' , ti S {.t • .j.. Al
1.A
r' ;
1'.
M , t TkN r'r ,T 7 . '} Ta1tA
t4'({
rt j 4'Yt{ ,.ii/''• 3 y ' . t.t ,, ; {. .':V ', S; `.•• ,T -, SL
r. ,it,•r, +F dt Oi•t S'+
r
V.e r'
r.,
r
r' .r •t• , .;.'L x$ ti s t t.r, •til•:* )•
r f ,1' a k l
y • t
t s •1ttf ''wl t °.7•ia+ ,y fapi.lti•',• rr:,
1"' , :k (
t' a i :. • •;: rr t i:(t 7 '•
t i;''j'{. .,%.. 'tpt•t' % ',',+r ti''•k% 3:. 'Z rr ! }it•+ff.•t 4 '4 .,
rt `ta\ )
l#tAll,
ttt,
j
rjEFf
y •
fi
r
tf M; ,, t „•, ;
E. i..
i. try , , '. ,
f
r1.. '
h.:•,'h (.'":KI a'1- :., Y-., },. : l
r Y. •.•.r'`'i.': L.1. 11r• d. or Jt:J [: tr... }} j! id r jft ,.`.•' ,1:, :`
i ,a• ::J`'.NI .,. 1 •(i:''."i y 4,"'i. fisrri!••.'. 1,t•,,;' 'tyr t `t ,ri tt` tS y 4t cE,i..t•., i. ) t r •/., Y %, ..r N .
L ' i`'!,/tr' l` 1 tj"•
M !
a
t) ., '.}.' : A..t'rt'1
h .f•71 T}'V . yac•';~fa t 1, •.
t ,i :• , t
tf `'i !t 3 l rrIlk.
e."
i,
t ;r' 1r ?'. \. rri ..
VId i i) .'r ' A. r 1 j t fl' ita.r ) rYf . t .sry.;,1 .
r ,i,',r•ti• ,,`.,
t , .•
M fir: k,f1,'',tyi ,y , ..•f'•'•:ij%„jfr r '..%.
fii. .•"; A7T:: r-t ..1t9{}'••l v is
t' - c .}
ril + L Y• IG'' , .:r,r• ,, 'rte { .; .1,
Y.;' `
c +1•
E• +,
1
r,i AQ .'. , t1E.'•p ! E f r Kr ;..0 It,1 t4 ' . L •' tr1 -aa r F.. S t. t'T'4. ( N .. ,
4 .
fir'
t q , ! ! f :C t 1' p' •J t r t .
k :•>, i • t i TY ,6 r•i C
fl
t ,y *;'.t _I`(q iL. 1' fie: frLj '.a1r.s/- ,.;
r:•Jff•'!dv r+ ` •,L, yi.. .
r ', •Wy Y ! • tr la ,t Lf . a. ' ,
t
s•
ys ; ; t V
i 1, i i I' N,f M • }l / 1. w .! y ' + f 1, , , ' 1 1
i r ,.. , f , `
t ` t. ,N y.
T
S • ;r ' } "r r i r l r tj'Y!'(t'F '.
r; l.t yt t'n' ,Y'
I P'•
l:' r ••y rt ..
t •
kF /
1`
f,. ,Z' ` .'. Y:
a !
C .
i "
t6 ,'
y^
4^ '
t ,: .: .
r. , ,
Y
Iy is •t r. t z w' r'.
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:32 No.007 P.03
U)
W
L
0
LL
W
J
coQ
F -
Nc7e dU1)u)cDwti
N
0 :
L
0 0 0 0
tv
y c
ca ToO
g 0 g 0
Z >> 0
a
Li 3 -c o"
0
0
w c2 0 1-- Lt a c 0
C > mwZ> > > 0. C ,n
00JJJ I2 UH
z
a.
aoaocnrn
U `
w 0
U7 • c
0 0 .N
Z
Cu
EL Q
Q
W N
h c w co
cr U ; U
O
LLW
m
b b O N
Q)
Q) >_
0 o n
L Q
CL c 0
C7 cn
Z c y •
Q
co GU.
WSc 0LL
W
S
f-
D 0
Z a >, CD
Q Q0- Q
W Q) 0 Q
W c 6- Q)
i LL U
w
ti..
Q
TT •,. .•f. .113{.fl, a .,..ir, 'Ir :fit, 'r!; ,ti•,Y !%::; 1' .•:eu •t+y..!i!r',/..t —.—..
i• ,y%•' •, •t. 7tk '.t vtlll'• ^,•{.r 1;L, ,f'. I '," •,,,'' :-• r,Jr: ,1 .tr (.1 t i
e Ltdt'/T'i
1. '•
t t. .Z, 4/,: ', T/iii.;%. 3 .. tl _,}. ° J... }t \!'. ! a' f 7..•ar ft l t. t..
t ,' I 7`t` .. .;) : `
i :!ta•'Yf 7:
y;`,,
It.'
f i; \ aMi.Yr A ';'
i .R t F ,, '.
Z,t t Il 1 +1 ghYj•+ C '' it t'F: • :N;(7dF r 't i r ir A.c ;a 1 „M o{ r• `,..
ln
t+ !- ,'• ,•
tf.r\.).,fi;y•.
r{ •_
A. ,w,S.Itt , •.r',• ,
R•..t' iv_..:t + . ' j I, tyt t
t r,
s 4, 1 r J r•y". x mvi,1 t1 1t. •r i•i' bv;i:,ry_..j t
f `(`1•r<-+'k i/w ,#„ri;:e1
1.k f' of at it'• etF; ;i +shy '(1{p 7P
J.t . 1,J:,r+j""Y . • ''41-t'y !ti 7_ r1 •,1{
f
jy e' '.•{,.1 r~, r t- a °C ` +1. ?'•w ) •Rf•,{ 1 1 rP ;
1 • kN, 7'.
t1 AAItr
a ;1• ., .r): '•t ^
11 t _t r_/. .:rt; I yet•• r dI1, nJ• t. :J .!- . . ..
t !. ••OYJ(tA .t {t-1. , -
a r.1•f\r t
t +f
r ..
ki\''l _y 1.' ..
r..I- .Ita •1. . rty {'i[t/ 7r t,
w
a f'r y { .r
r , ,.-
t
r
f '.,
1:, J • t C t- t ,• . , a SI 1, .fit _ )
t1 4. •r .i/{xi 't •.ri,1..•^ _ }. t,9,}fl .” 'yy t t Y «'{
t ••
l 1 .1 t-•!\•..R:. 'n
i r,r :Y .r 11i#r,
t ,
t
r
u r:')nT.R,:15yY1:9'.t,s rJ;° .jr i s `:[..t t',)• r•`' r 1- ,\ •t >•.,
r t ' 4. t.' l{r •w y , N i. t Y ti,•S i1
Y I J• { r ir• '1~f •t Z :'
h '1, I 1 +I y' ''r 1 .•
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391
z
LL
z
z
Q
a
APR 08'99 12:34 No.007 P.04
w vc c t9Z,a) t_. o- o d o
Uwc 3 E ca mooZ
Y°
E E v U y W
orn0c°.0=Q) E 0. m OZ
a. k- •Y d C O o = 0-0 O W O
CL u -ca O rn a
cu mU aEi Eav o ate' Q y c QO
C L tG O 7 C 'Y M C fd ? oc-ooYo' a.afZ ) o -vc m O
y Our Z o Qa }U
o- o H t C a` v . 0 C uj M O . ai uJ ww
W ' cc: m C. 0 o> F. 0 m Z
o co c
M
0to °'>.• c O p_ ° WO
av cao.°4vVat Uj
oa)LO O oaaia YF-
4) y Y a) ?
Q
L oa)
a)
c
C y
ca o
a
QE
3 Mo. p O m
CC) S; > oz m o QaIL pc7EM0a) CL) d
vO N
Oy°o E) co C> }
m
FL-
t•
Ovs .?a) »O- U '
N
U
vo0
Q -a) 4) W
QC'tf Gv NcZECEOVD W
N Q A m O 3
aF-
h-
cn OO y d c
3 G 0(5
r- coZCL
w c
Q) °
c C W f° 0
pcOpc .. a , c
a' t:m C 'C T N a N IV N -''c ° y am O
m .0to N.c O•c_
L U
E "~ v m cO Q Q.r c CnM 7 4) N
C~ O C cti ( >. y cm C C >+ v O0-
0 4) a C. C. O y 7 d C 0 a) 0 °
c N' Noya Q aEdr pc c
a V rC D c '0 •O Ci ( E
0 N C c w `c ro r C a.
y s l '- cp .c C z o 04 m .Oo ° O cva 'a O vi
c
c ro c - vi E '°o
cv U >. Nr N 8 T o 0t
N2r- coo o•EE- 43 x y a W c C Ow .c c C. ° a
O ° p y ... Y c
C p y G7 f/7 — O V ro + C 0 y w C y vEsc.--o° y3crE w a cvm?i.=...
o s o 0
o 0 aEim''
a
or m O HCE
ca >^ C O c E--' > co A H 2- C
a vc amiUa-
aw
oEya.oc LL oo'
cao acc
0? y} Q c o C° C
Lo.
m
U
oN4) coo0?C E 7 0=
y O vco c i+ (
C G C.
tm a vica r..a'c`a -
c > E O o c o c c O t cv .O (D ca a E: 0 .2 O
1- D 2 O a M U w 0.9 as >% 'v > = ' 0 0> 0
91
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:34 No.007 P.05
p
x
L
o
Qa
V- T•- V Lo Cl n
cn
O W)
N
Q//
w
o
O
v+
m
LL
O
N
W
Z_
LL
g
D
M
oaow
c7 co) ch D M ti j P• M O
Vo w
Q O O O D O Q O O
E
N
G w f-
cn r'
OVy9a)
c
O O a) N O C
U)
a) O V
0-0
O Cp
N r .+ c V av3maCAC.0 N c1
N R O 7
C a) O
c
a) U
a)
V
a)
O
to vs
c0
p
d
y
C
td
2OOa N
Vu s Q).Q
FE
a)Ott o c o
a
A
0 o Q) Ep
0
09 O >F- O>
N O C 7
a
U
y
o o
a)
O
C
N
0
O
oc E 0" iv v
o m a
n
a)
rn
r-
E
O
c
c
cn o G
oto
g
Ea.a DD
m o a; a r CL
tn C N
o
0
co
G 0 O
o
0
N N
o U r o Nv °o o E a
a- co o o a
CL
w c y
o
c cc O y o v-•
C
O c c UJ c
c0y
G
r+
w
O.. t
M
O
r
N
U d
r0
v G CO Q3
O GC
0 0 0 O p O
a)
c rn E V cn O
t"rd N 7 r N
O V)
a3
U O
CLyi g o N 3 U) E o v s b
c:_ tm
c" OC
tm c o C t O c
O Q 2
Y C w X C
O Y
j c
C N
j
n) J 4) Q aai n- li F W W N n cn Z
LL O Q
7n
mu
c
x
L
o
Qa
rDO
CL C
E
W
Y L
5
Cl
Q//
w
cU/
W v+
m
LL
O
4) W
Z_
LL
g oaow
U c
E
V
m
7n
mu
c O rDO
c
H
c U o
p OC U) -
g oaow
o
c %-
D m
ti
E cn
zvs
r > c° 4) Vo w
Eo=(nc
a
a o yo.r
04) >
c
L.c
c N
O Cp
N r .+ c V av3maCAC.0 N c1
N R O 7
N c v N
a 6 G N A p C p R
p
000
C O O C O 0.2
y
C V
td
2OOaN
Vu s Q).Q
FE
a)Ott o c o
a
A
0 o Q) Ep
0
09 O >F- O>
N O C 7
a
U
y C C
ON
a)
O
C
N
0
O
J Q o o z n
Q
v
7.
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391
m 0 _
O to L c A O
t9 =
ai O
OC
N'
b d p>OC
0to
c.%.j
w'`'` CEn a W7
Cor
EO
E a LL p 'C tfo
X ' t t > O O d O
00 w w
to ' O O ajo p d O j
U a
CD O 0O'
C p o C
C a C p Oa'V U 0 ` C
C OEONOOOtF- liw
c°E c Ntea7ami
c•O N U O o N.O co •-
5-2 t CE O C- t0 N C L t C E
O C O x O C O O O OO ,Ut1C >.. - C O N r C U N G i7 M ,p O = 7CCU. O _E 2 L tC
c
c 00 cd L O' OO
s aUt QO0 Q1 o Ota
anf a z W 15 c E o co - tnnf0 ? ,
c) '
2Oc m
C d eQ 2 O p o C C n tr O t
L°iw c a o 3 3 u Qm E o'> 3:
12:35 No . 007 P.06
p bf ti O tii cm O
C31
O
r -
n
C
L
44
o
to
r
Ln
V- C
O O M
to C tip
V) O
0.2
O cn y O M O O
E O C O CM ca
M
co CwO
U j
10
V
N
L6
V Q cr)
O
OO
O
r .2
eco G c o E tv
co
a E o m
c ° c 0 vi m
ca
p w
of
Cc
CL u co CL,
N.
0d
A Q E
th > 3 L N
U c C p cy
G NQV0` V N
C O C O C
C a: of a O y
O CL O N G w N N C3 C
OOC d G CG C O
p vi O CM O 026.0 N yO
O
O C
w
oCLUC a g m
0
O O
CL CL
im a> Cai E
0f
O
0O
0
20LL
C° G
0oNvcCtEVcv
o'er c c E 0 8 14 d
G
oLLLL. w
d
J oQw Q
m
U. w Q
3
A LL
A
Z•1
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-3391
Z
W
Q
z
H
W
d
a
APR 08'99 12 35 No.00( P.07
w O O OcCoY cE cc
ooi E o M 0)
00c .0 •` Q ca H
C 4) E0) NL O O td' y
t 3 EQfNw m W OL QC O
O
f O r- O w C = O "' G L
U jOQ. (v c0 N C ( y Q ... o
O r a•
V
O N C V M O O y p F y
T' G CO
C
V >. Z a 00.a Eb
cgcn v A Scc O
O ,
O Q
OO
a A
O
TQ) CCO >cM = m cojO
4)nE NEO ° o CL W
b C O
o
CM L) 0 .° W w N o 3
3= t O G r E UN
O
UL.v O N O'er 'N O
r +' d o WW o O °'
m a, o m c c
O C > N 4
OC1)E
CU C E E aOmacn (n
aE Q) .D yamoasEOccOE
N O N
C N OOOv_) U) O U
D O
vcQ
O V U '8 O O 'U O r- 0 Ow Q .p O ?. O UO . a 4) C) v
yy .
n O .o 00 O ca O . •r O OUCy'•- 0.0 O O O NO
aI c0 N C a
Q
aCC aCp O a' ALO
C LO
j>
pC80O %1-
aW O s 43 'D c, 00 q)—
Z
a y
0 »_ 0
EoE
M EEqc,4tN
EV0
7a
m
vM 04 w- J O p S 0%-000 0.
O°-
0Lu ( cd cti «+ O O O O .. p 0 0- O C E . O
O O
m a)w ~ O
0 -0
coyCr„ "
i w Com• w C O N
a/ OU) N«f Cc >a cyNG cUN0 > o'
4.0
W,
c
OLP, w y m (v
c0 CtO
y tOc
w7
CaQ °oNovEco
auim0Lm
Cid U
w CO a V O M.0N
U
Qf
d c E 0
00
I-
CITY OF 8ROOKL'(N PK. ID:612-493-83'31 RPR 08'99 11:Jb NO.UU( r.U8
W L C G O
co=_
cm
N4•ac H a c U
a) C) O u 3 E g O O 0
m cn -0C1 @ t0 cn -0 O O
C U ` eO x - +
to fl ~ Qf
O3 0 d) w N C y O y 7 0 N •
caocrn'Co orOEw 8 aoca
s' NN .. L"' O CMS. RS .3
O
D7 N y
al O N O r 's O O O U Q R D Ct r- 6- OLLI .T
O 0+ L C
O
w = a .0
O. > O V7 .O'-, N- p
0) 0Q)
r t... O H C O m 6- to mw
N a) v
O
ca 4 m c N a3 o Q
d) • c — .0 -v ccv
uN .:03 a a N E
L O L O r- O 'C Qf v fYp C N C U C
A a3 as O N 'o C O E N ?. C y 41 O d . C N
v o . '` ' r E E N2 -5Qcum 0 0 E aai
N t c ff t o ca y O a)
U0 H cv >• U U E m a m .5 .5
0 C A O .r
mo 0 C d . t O A Q .Q y
N O a O
C 7 L E O
OO — C r N C w '` V u to V E O V O 7
N O O QS C V1 _ 2 C
C N C O W o. V. V O C O C N O ° O
oEva >zQ, >'0m 3a,o u c'ENa)0 a cc
N_ 0.0 7 N N N N 'G C a O C O c 'C p
cC Q C O - N O 4) ti. a M O 'C -0 m
C (d ¢ to +r a) .'L3 O 'p
EcLcoA>,w= v"z W=w 0 WEwa Nc csc
NO—wa> =y cap r t.G m mOd) 5, 0 +o to U) E 0)
b 2 i O
4Z 0)
O
r
d) O ' N r C O vi c t w 'C ':. p p~ .0 -p C m w c . tm A p ) cj O a G O .. N t-` .
r Q .Du E p cp „dCap "" c c p 7 > L E T s ," d CL p W p () —
c-aa°cl M( -0 0 c 3: oo E T N°oEa o,G
E a>>E= }.o aa,a30 „o 6- MEc4
vmo °
c 3= : 4 0 E'` c rnN v-- Nita oNn 'd .0 cd C O Q `p O) j O G a3 `• '3 .G >+ a Q2 O p J1
r w C d) VOpCc3 -- n Q. c c 'c o N d) t W' -o o
O L
V¢
U a 3 O ° O L c G p Q o= t 43 «
t-.
O
d
Q)
3 o
3w
c
otESO4) c cycv H .0 m om' ' =6-U)
N v ,o a ° ea p 0 (D tea d) c 0) M c`ro v
a ° ' >' '" _- E o ° a y to
o
O O .
O
C
N— E co'ea'o'E Z ca c . cm0cr-Da; 3
U)r- ZOO(D-0-0 °.."=>E83o ecv
O L C Q a0i
Q G a• `° C 0 ?' Q L m w O C t3' } U
y w+• N + O E 7 d) p1 a c.i Ql o c 0 VN Q` y
a i_ EoE°'°°•cEaEi '`_ra> Cc o,viU-v
7 y N O N 0 0 a R= O &n U , c0 U C j. m O fa 3 0 0 0-
O p p a'.c rrw > e> o- o a o o E r E wz5a2 0i- 3
n = c cn.mma>.• >-avEEHt cr ri
0
0
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:37 No.007 P.09
o 0
U O U N ro w 0
ch .E O
OC U sCL
o y O
O
aC2MOG ` V
cn O v O co y a o r 3 p cn H o O a V O-
0 E Eo ;s ca a o >,.cd
mo-v,tMNc cc ai
Z .:
C ca U
o U' cn o 0 a) O o c LU a ci0
CL C a CL N C .. ` y v Z
C
ca V
y— E -0 E G Eco W
coo 0mo a=000-v, _
U r p
L C D7 ` 3 >. _ y O N O 0 E
C U ` O N G 0.c C C'C «- `' a
p t t — a o 3 -0 0 0 w o c co 0
ui d H co c`a ev `
g N
y
o ca W a o
a o c o n.o 8 y !- a E}
oay, a oo""c 0.M--•oma ti ,Q ?o
oC y o M a) y 0-0 .` c cv O 0 O O 7 c0 a
F-- O> C7 a) Q d 'E L Im y .c C
7 O C O E O O C Qf O
c C >
Q
9O
0 ftl O w U >. 0
r O 5 O Q O U J m C cv
m 0) S z a r E cL o E
O% a p O Q1 y cp O 0 NCE , p s C x U G .._ U
r
0 UUQ. U t 0 d. 3: W m O ,C
0
y
a) N
4;:0 'N N O
0 r
m G
O
G dj C .E
p p U E
4p
m
Cp
w mGidOC (0 7 r V t r
OCL N -
mo y -v y Eco
o t `9 o E a O v 0E8Emoot 'c CD i Q,oc
r
O. O aitm
6.
y_Eo oeN CL
m y oMcc c oomaa t v, L' a s of o
E .O cp C y .O Vj ~ c y 3 l ?' O a}
o> O E t o 0 0 .a C o Y ' 3 0 o ca o a LA I - .Q
0oy .. oma.o ,o. 83 v NE o E..>
v a) m wwwcu c y o c ., o> O p o E y ; ca ., m o
MO
V O y O 0 N G L C p b c G. v _
C c 0 7«
r U '' w C M .O =
70.+
O A Y: 0. 8 UL.+
ErEo ..vs•o ovocn Q.REo X,
U'C IV •v _ aL 4 3
o V c`° 0 0 0 O O C y'OC
c E Wr c UQ o.
0 0
v
C C O
O Ct
O M G o co o c6 .n U 'c7 'o O M.0 0,0
L O O C o
O N o U O w t 'O C t y
Ci H a: Q Q '= o - 0 F" t4
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 HF'K V25 yy 1 L J r ivu . vv I lv
O
d
M
et '
N
co
V
V.
O
r/
N
C
R Q
G. E
CL 2
Q
O
a. Q_
O C
O
E
co O-
ri U .c
a
o°
o co n 'o y a ,a o n
m
C O) a ci a y O
y '> v) p> z O
y O .. >.b >1 O O 0 O_ p
c,) cv c ;t O
UNOO btV
p
o -g>OE >
Z O , o ccp0O
cv viUTC
CL --r, '
d'
vcG -
F
r- C TCL
y yO
C mpc o p. p
f
a0EONO '
EL N T F U w V O ?•
U '> ` C v x0
c 7 y .0 O 3 O d $ O 0 O O>
p Ci O V O C p N T f'• C3 C C •' Ntm a s >` o
b O O Q p O G1
O ..
tC +" • O 3 p C U C
c—vo`
cE
a'o>3a>i a w a o.coNac
O p 0 7 U 0
0 0 `- p >` O j 0 N p 7 .. JC G
T> t O d O y 0 O 'g R O "' p O U' U cn O fn V>
Q O Q` U y Q. 1- > O. ?. F a Q a y -
p O O ,,
O O 0 ep CL >..c C O C
M p 0 'N p G yA O ci .6 V
O + + y y L U. 0Vat
C G y O
d N y 0 v y. O
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:38 No..007 P.11
Section 903.10. PPu Qo _e
The City Council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcing the City
Code. While criminal fines and penalties have been the most frequent enforcement
mechanisms, there are certain negative consequences for both the City and the public. The
delay inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution. Citizens resent being
labeled criminals for violations of administrative regulations. The higher burden of proof and
the potential of incarceration do not appear appropriate for most administrative violations.
The criminal process does not always regard City Code violations as important. Accordingly,
the City Council finds that the use of administrative citations and the imposition of civil
penalties is a legitimate and necessary alternative method of enforcement. This method of
enforcement shall be in addition to any other legal remedy which may be pursued for City
Code violations.
Section 903.20. Administrative Citateons and Civil Penalties.
Sections 903.20 through 903.1 10 shall govern administrative citations and civil penalties
for violations of the City Code.
Section 903.40. General Provisions.
Subd. 1. A violation of any provision of the City Code is an administrative offense, which
may be subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties pursuant to Sections 903.20
through 903.100. Each day a violation exists constitutes a separate offense.
Subd. 2. An administrative offense may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding
2000.00.
Subd. 3. The City Council must adopt by resolution a schedule of recommended fines for
offenses initiated by administration citation. The City Council is not bound by that schedule
when a matter is appealed to it for administrative review.
Subd. 4. The City Council may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing
officers.
Subd. 5. The City Manager must adopt written procedures for administering the
administrative citation program.
Section 903.50. A mini5traLiye Citation.
Subd. 1. Any person authorized to enforce provisions of the City Code may issue an
administrative citation upon belief that a Code violation has occurred. Tho citation must be
issued in person or by first class mail to the person responsible for the violation or attached
Section 903 added by Ordinance #1998-881; effective July 22, 1998
CITY OF BROOKLYN r'K . lU HrK ua yy iJo rvu .uvr r . 11
0U(,L1V11 JVJ..lV
Subd. 1
to the motor vehicle in the case of a vehicular offense. The citation must state the date,
time, and nature of the offense, the identity of the person issuing the citation, the amount
of the scheduled fine, and the manner for paying the fine or appealing the citation.
Subd. 2. The person responsible for the violation must either pay the scheduled fine or
request a hearing within seven days after issuance of the citation. Payment of the fine
constitutes admission of the violation. A late payment fee of 10% of the scheduled fine
amount shall be imposed in accordance with Section 903.90.
Subd. 1 . The City Council shall periodically approve a list of persons, from which the City
Manager or designated agent will randomly select a hearing officer to hear and determine a
matter for which a hearing is requested. A person who has been issued a citation shall have
the right to request, no later than five days before the date of the hearing, that the assigned
hearing officer be removed from the case. One such request for each case will be granted
automatically by the City Manager or designated agent. A subsequent request must be
directed to the assigned hearing officer who will decide whether he or she can fairly and
objectively review the case. The person issuing the citation may request the removal of a
hearing officer only if the hearing officer cannot fairly and objectively review the case. If
such a finding is made, the officer shall remove himself or herself from the case, and the City
Manager or designated agent shall assign another hearing officer. The hearing officer is not
a judicial officer but is a public officer as defined by Minnesota Statute 609.415. The
hearing officer must not be an employee of the City. The City Manager or designated agent
shall establish a procedure for evaluating the competency of the hearing officers, including
comments from citizens and City staff. These reports shall be provided to the City Council.
Subd. 2. Upon the hearing officer's own initiative or upon written request of an interested
party demonstrating the need, the officer may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a
witness or the production of books, papers, records or other documents that are material to
the matter being heard. The party requesting the subpoena shall be responsible for serving
the subpoena in the manner provided for civil actions and for paying the fees and expenses
of any witness. A person served with a subpoena may file an objection with the hearing
officer promptly but no later than the time specified in the subpoena for compliance. The
officer may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. Any person
who, without just cause, fails or refuses to attend and testify or to produce the required
documents in obedience to a subpoena shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the
party requesting the subpoena may seek an order from district court directing compliance.
Subd. 3. Notice of the hearing must be served in person or by mail on the person responsible
for the violation at least ten days in advance, unless a shorter time is accepted by all parties.
At the hearing, the parties will have the opportunity to present testimony and question any
witnesses, but strict rules of evidence shall not apply. The hearing officer shall record the
hearing and receive testimony and exhibits. The officer shall receive and give weight to
evidence, including reliable hearsay evidence, which possesses probative value commonly
accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of their affairs.
Section 903 added by Ordinance #1998-881; effective July 22, 1998
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:39
7No.
007 P.13
E'CLIUIt UVJ. VV
Subd. 4
Subd. 4. The hearing officer has the authority to determine that a violation 'occurred, to
dismiss a citation, to impose the scheduled fine, and to reduce, stay, or waive a scheduled
fine either unconditionally or upon compliance with appropriate conditions. When imposing
a penalty for a violation, the hearing officer may consider any or all of the following factors:
A. The duration of the violation,
B. The frequency or recurrence of the violation,
C. The seriousness of the violation,
D. The history of the violation,
E. The violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing,
F. The good faith effort by the violator to comply,
G. The economic impact of the penalty on the violator,
H. The impact of the violation upon the community, and
1. Any other factors appropriate to a just result.
Subd. 5. The hearing officer may exercise discretion to impose a fine for more than one day
of a continuing violation, but only upon a finding that (1) the violation caused a serious threat
of harm to the public health, safety, or welfare or that (2) the accused intentionally and the
unreasonably refused to comply with the code requirement. The hearing officer's decision
and supporting reasons must be in writing.
A. The failure to pay the fine or request a hearing within seven days after the
citation, or the failure to attend the hearing, constitutes a waiver of the
violator's rights to an administrative hearing and is an admission of the violation.
A hearing officer may waive this result upon good cause shown. Examples of
good cause": death or incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order
requiring the accused to appear for another hearing at the same time; and lack
of proper service of the citation or notice of the hearing. "Good cause" shall not
include: forgetfulness and intentional delay.
B. The decision of the hearing officer is final without any further right of
administrative appeal, except for matters subject to administrative review under
Section 903.70. in a matter subject to administrative review under Section
903.70, the hearing officer's decision may be appealed to the City Council by
submitting a request in writing to the City Manager or designated agent within
seven days after the hearing officer's decision.
Section 903.70. Administralive Buiew.
Subd. 1. The hearing officer's decision in any of the following matters may be appealed by
any party to the City Council for administrative review:
A. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval from the City
Council as required by an ordinance,
Section 903 added by Ordinance #1998-881; effective July 22, 1998
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID b12-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:40 No.007 P.14
Section 903.70
Subd.1
B. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, or the conditions
attached to the permit, license, or approval, which was granted by the City
Council, and
C. An alleged violation of regulations governing a person or entity, who has
received a license granted by the City Council.
Subd. 2. The appeal shall be heard by the City Council after notice served in person or by
registered mail at least ten days in advance. The parties to the hearing shall have an
opportunity to present oral or written arguments regarding the hearing officer's decision.
Subd. 3. The City Council shall consider the record, the hearing officer's decision, and any
additional arguments before making a determination. The Council is not bound by the hearing
officer's decision, but may adopt all or part of the officer's decision. The Council's decision
must be in writing.
Subd. 4. If the Council makes a finding of a violation, it may impose a civil penalty not
exceeding $2000.00 per day per violation, and may consider any or all of the factors
contained in Section 903.60 Subd. 4. The Council may also reduce, stay, or waive a fine
unconditionally or based on reasonable and appropriate conditions.
Subd. 5. In addition to imposing a civil penalty, the Council may suspend or revoke any
City -issued license, permit, or other approval associated with the violation, if the procedures
in the City Code have been followed. Any hearing required in the City Code for such
suspension or revocation shall be deemed satisfied by the hearing before the hearing officer
with the right of appeal to the City Council.
An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer or the
City Council in accordance with state law.
Subd. 1 . If a civil penalty is not paid within the time specified, it shall constitute:
A. A personal obligation of the violator in all other situations, and
B. A lien upon the real property upon which the violation occurred if the property
or improvements on the property were the subject of the violation and the
property owner was found responsible for that violation.
Section 903 added by Ordinance # 1998-881; effective July 22, 1998
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 1240 No.007 P.15
Section 903.90
Subd. 2
Subd. 2. A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as
taxes.
Subd. 3. A personal obligation may be collected by any appropriate legal means.
Subd. 4. A late payment fee of 10% of the fine shall be assessed for each thirty -day period,
or part thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date.
Subd. 5. During the time that a civil penalty remains unpaid, no City approval will be
granted for a license, permit, or other City approval sought by the violator or for property
under the violator's ownership or control.
Subd. 6. Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending, revoking, denying, or not renewing
a license or permit associated with the violation.
The following are misdemeanors, punishable in accordance with state law:
A. Failure, without good cause, to pay a fine or request a hearing within thirty days
after issuance of an administrative citation.
Bo Failure, without good cause, to appear at a hearing which was scheduled under
Section 903.60.
C. Failure to pay a fine imposed by a hearing officer within 30 days after it was
imposed, or such other time as may b0 established by the hearing officer, unless
the matter is appealed under Section 903.70.
D. Failure to pay a fine imposed by the City Council within 30 days after it was
imposed, or such other time as may be established by the City Council.
Where differences occur between provisions of this ordinance and other applicable ordinance
sections, this ordinance shall apply.
903.120 F_ fertive Date.
This ordinance shall become effective upon City Charter Section 14.19 becoming effective.
Section 903 added by Ordinance #1998-881; effective July 22, 1998
t
t -11Y OF b1<UUKLYN F'K. IU:blI HFk Ud'yy 1141 NO.UU( P.16
RESOLUTION #1998-142
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTIES FOR CITATIONS RESULTING FROM
VIOLATIONS OF CITY ORDINANCES
WHEREAS, the Administrative Penalties Section 903 of the
City Code provides for penalties to be charges as established by
Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the city incurs additional costs when City Code
violations continue; and
WHEREAS, the city wishes to establish penalties consistent
with the Diatrict Court fine schedule;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN, that the following penalty schedule is adopted:
Level One Violations 25.00
Level Two Violations 50.00
Level Three Violations 100.00
Level Four Violations 200.00
Repeat Violations Within 24 Months Double the amount of
the scheduled fine
for the previous
violation, up to a
maximum of $2,000.00
Continuing Violations A fine for that can
be imposed by the
hearing officer for
each day that the
violation continues.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this administrative penalty schedule
shall become effective upon City Charter Section 14.19 becoming
effective.
41998-142
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK. ID:612-493-8391 APR 08'99 12:41 No.007 P.17
RESOLUTION #1998-143
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR HEARING OFFICERS AS THEY RELATE
TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY ORDINANCE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARING PROCESS
WHEREAS, the Administrative Penalties Section 903 of the
City Code provides for an administrative hearing; and
WHEREAS, this hearing is heard by a hearing officer; and
WHEREAS, this hearing officer is not an employee of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the city wishes to establish fees consistent with
other hearing officers;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN, that the following fee schedule is adopted:
Per Session (4 hour max.) $100.00
Each time they are required $ 10.00
to act upon a request for a subpoena or other such
action involved in the process.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this hearing officer fee schedule
shall become effective upon City Charter Section 14.19 becoming
effective.
The foregoing resolution was introduced by Councilmember Enge and
duly seconded by Councilmember Gustafson.
The following voted in favor of the resolution: Arbogast,
Draeger, Eder, Enge; Feess, Gustafson and Trepanier.
The following voted against: None.
The following were. absent: None.
Whereupon the resolution was adopted.
ADOPTED: MAY 26, 1998
GRACE ARBOGAST,
MAYOFOr
r #
1998-143
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Clerk -.
SUBJECT: Policy on City Funding of Human Service Agencies
DATE: April 8, 1999, for Council study session on April 13, 1999
ACTION REQUESTED: Review the proposed policy relating to City funding of human
service agencies.
BACKGROUND
Council members have requested a review of the City's policy on the funding of human
service agencies. This memo is not intended to initiate discussion on the merits of which
organizations have received funding, but rather to help the Council address the legal and
philosophical policy issues and to consider the process for reviewing funding requests.
Requests for contributions from the City's General Fund Budget are considered under the
Policy on City Funding of Human Service Agencies (copy attached). This policy was adopted
by the City Council in 1984 and amended to the current version in 1992. Contributions are
considered as part of the budget process. In June of each year, staff sends out letters inviting
funding requests. These requests are reviewed by staff and a funding recommendation is
included in the " social services" line item of the draft budget presented to the City Council.
The attached spreadsheet shows the contributions to human service agencies from the General
Fund in 1999. The City's total contributions from the General Fund have increased from
89,500 in 1996 to $110,010 in 1999. The total amount has doubled in the past 10 years;
however the 1999 amount is less than 1 percent of the General Fund budget.
A factor that is difficult to measure is the amount of " in-kind" contribution provided by the
City to some of these agencies. We have staff in nearly every department who work with
these organizations as board members or as resources for the agencies. As examples, Mary
Bisek serves as a board member and resource to the CONECT Collaborative and Jeanette
Sobania assists the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council with selection and other
personnel issues.
LEGAL ISSUES
The City Attorney has advised that it is not legal for the City to make charitable donations,
contributions, or grants based solely on good cause to any agency. For a municipal
Human Service Funding Memo
April 9, 1999
Page 2
expenditure to be valid, it must be for a public purpose and must be expressly authorized by
statute. Since 1995, there has been express authorization in the statutes for food distribution,
hospitals, and economic development related contributions. There are additional grants of
authority scattered throughout the statutes, such as for funding the fine arts. The State Auditor
has allowed very few implied grants of authority. The following new elements are
recommended in the revised policy to ensure that legal requirements are met:
1. The public purpose must be identified for each contribution.
2. The statutory authority must be identified for each contribution.
3. The City must have a written agreement with each agency receiving a contribution to
ensure that the funds will be spent on a program which meets the public purpose and
statutory authority requirements and, when appropriate, to document that the agency is
providing a service for the City in exchange for a contribution.
In the past, the City Attorney has not reviewed the specific list and purpose of human service
agencies requesting funding; however, this is recommended for future funding requests to
ensure that public purpose and statutory authorizations are met before requests are considered
by the City Council.
OTHER ISSUES
Once the legal issues have been met with regard to a funding request, the remaining issues are
philosophical. The City Council may wish to amend some or all of the funding guidelines in
the proposed policy. These are unchanged from the current policy.
REVIEW PROCESS
There are several options to consider for the review process. As part of the 1999 budget
process, the City Council met with each human service agency to discuss their specific funding
request. Each agency presented basic information about their services, addressed how they
serve Plymouth residents, and answered questions from the Council. The City Council then
made the decision of which requests to fund.
The cities of Maple Grove and Eden Prairie have policies very similar to Plymouth, where
requests are considered as part of the budget process by the City Council. Eden Prairie uses
an ad-hoc committee comprised of staff, council, and representatives from the various city
commissions to review the funding requests and to make a recommendation to the City
Council. Brooklyn Park has restricted its funds to four agencies, and each year the City
Council decides the contribution amount. The cities of Eagan and Burnsville do not contribute
anything to human service agencies from the general fund. The city of St. Louis Park
Human Service Funding Memo
April 9, 1999
Page 3
considers human service contributions as part of the budget process; however, the City only
funds services that support the City's long-term vision.
CDBG FUNDS
Contributions are also made to human service agencies from Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds in the HRA Budget. The CDBG Program is federally funded, and there
are specific federal program requirements. Human service programs must meet the objectives
adopted in the City's Consolidated Plan, and agencies must prove allowable expenditures in
order to "draw down" their CDBG fund account. There is an established process for
reviewing funding requests, which includes a public hearing by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. Only 15 percent of the City's CDBG funds can be allocated to
human service agencies. The City Council recently approved CDBG allocations to the
following human service programs: Training & Resources to Attain Individual Long Term
Success (TRAILS), Family Hope Services, Northwest Branch YMCA, Greater Minneapolis
Day Care Association, and Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH). The
proposed policy relating to City funding of Human Service Agencies would not apply to
CDBG funding requests.
Organizations Funded through General Fund in 1999
rgp 1999, City
dget Amount
Plymouth
residents
served
Additional Major ,F
Contribution Sources
Senior Community 12,500 228 United Way
Services Other cities
Hennepin County
State of MN
Met Council
Northwest Other cities
Hennepin Human 11,465 229 State of MN
Services Council Foundations
Private contributions
Federal grants
PRISM 5,835 436 Churches/Corporations
Other cities
Family Hope 3,100 Other cities
Services
Interfaith Outreach 15,900 5,245 Private contributions
Other cities
Foundations
United Way
Businesses
Or anizations/Schools
Communities in 2,710 School District 284
Collaboration Other cities
State of MN Grant
Home Free 33,000 3,000 Other cities
State MN Corrections
United Way
Employment 3,100 26 Plymouth HRA
Action Center Federal Jobs funds
West Suburban 4,000 27 State of MN
Mediation Center Hennepin County
Other cities
Juvenile restitution
Teens Alone 2,000 93 Private contributions
Hennepin County
Other cities
School districts
YMCA -Detached 3,000 143 United Way
Worker Hennepin County
Other cities
West Med. Lake 5,400 None
CC - seniors
CONECT 8,000 McKnight Foundation
Collaborative Lutheran Brotherhood
HealthS stem MN
POLICY RELATING TO CITY FUNDING OF HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES
Resolution No. 92-31
January 6, 1992 (Supersedes Resolution 84-506, July 23, 1984)
IN GENERAL
The City Council is aware that there are many worthwhile human service agencies serving
metropolitan area residents and that such organizations are supported primarily through public
and private contributions. Contributions to such agencies from the City of Plymouth, when
made, will be distributed in accordance with this policy.
POLICY GUIDELINES
The Plymouth City Council is responsible for periodically determining whether a financial or
in-kind contribution will be made by the City to assist human service agencies. The City
Council will consider the following guidelines in determining which human service
agency(ies), if any, receive funding. This policy should not be construed to obligate the City
Council to provide funding or in-kind human service contributions.
1. Annually as part of the budget cycle, human service agencies will be asked to submit
their funding requests and justification within the deadline. Only those agencies who
submit a written request conforming to this policy within the established timeframe will
be considered for funding.
2. The City Council shall not normally engage in long term (multi-year) funding to any
human service agency. Instead all funding shall be evaluated for impact and
appropriateness each year.
3. The City Council will normally consider human service priorities established annually by
the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board and Northwest Hennepin Human
Services Planning Board.
4. Human service agencies will be expected to provide data substantiating the need for their
specific types of service within the Plymouth community. Specific figures on the
Plymouth population(s) served through their efforts, fiscal analysis of cost of delivery of
such services and documentation that their services do not duplicate those of other
agencies serving the Plymouth population.
5. The City Council will only consider funding programs or agencies which can
demonstrate that the funds are used solely to provide services to Plymouth residents.
6. The City will give preference to funding human service delivery agencies that act as an
advocate and advisor regarding other available human services for the Plymouth
population.
7. Funding requests will normally be considered in relation to existing City human service
commitments and the target populations served.
8. Preference will be given to agencies or programs which:
a) Have taken affirmative efforts to raise funds to support their efforts.
25a
b) Demonstrate in their budgets that there is a continuing concentration on
minimizing administrative and overhead costs.
C) Cannot be effectively or fully funded through other sources.
d) Sponsor programs which have verifiable benefits to the community at large for
example, programs that put people to work or enhance the effectiveness of City
service delivery programs.
e) Make effective use of volunteer skills and in-kind contributions to reduce the cost
of program/service delivery.
9. Each agency requesting city funding will be advised in writing of the status of their
request and how to receive the contribution(s) once the budget has been adopted by the
City Council
25b
Resolution No.:
Date:
PROPOSED POLICY RELATING TO CITY FUNDING OF
HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES
Supersedes Resolution 92-31, January 6, 1992;
Resolution 84-506, July 23, 1984)
The Plymouth City Council is responsible for periodically determining whether a financial or
in-kind contribution will be made by the City to assist human service agencies. Human
service funding requests will be considered as part of the annual budget cycle.
1. Any City contribution to a human service agency shall be for a public purpose and shall be
expressly authorized by statute, and this information shall be forwarded to the City Council
with the funding request.
2. The City Council will consider the following guidelines in determining which human
service agencies, if any, receive funding. This policy should not be construed to obligate the
City Council to provide funding or in-kind human service contributions.
A. Agencies must submit funding requests and all required information within the
established time frame to be considered for funding.
B. All funding requests shall be evaluated for effectiveness and appropriateness each year.
C. The City Council will normally consider human service priorities established by the
Northwest Hennepin Human Services Planning Board.
D. Human service agencies will be expected to provide data substantiating the need for
their specific types of service within the Plymouth community. Specific figures on the
Plymouth population served through their efforts, fiscal analysis of cost of delivery of
such services and documentation that their services do not duplicate those of other
agencies serving the Plymouth population.
E. The City Council will only consider funding programs or agencies which can
demonstrate that the funds are used solely to provide services to Plymouth residents.
F. Funding requests will normally be considered in relation to existing City human service
commitments and the target populations served.
G. Preference will be given to agencies or programs which:
1. Have taken affirmative efforts to raise funds to support their efforts.
2. Demonstrate in their budgets that there is a continuing concentration on
minimizing administrative and overhead costs.
3. Cannot be effectively or fully funded through other sources.
4. Sponsor programs which have verifiable benefits to the community at large,
for example, programs that put people to work or enhance the effectiveness
of City service delivery programs.
5. Make effective use of volunteer skills and in-kind contributions to reduce the
cost of program/service delivery.
H. The City Council may establish additional guidelines or criteria for consideration of
human service funding requests.
3. Before any human service agency receives funding, an agreement or contract between the
service agency shall be executed to ensure that the funds will be spent on aCityandthehumansegyp
program which meets the public purpose and statutory authority requirements and, when
appropriate, to establish that the agency is providing a service for the City in exchange for a
contribution.
Agenda Number: -5,
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Clerk,-
SUBJECT: Citizen Survey
DATE: April 6, 1999, for Special Council meeting of April 13, 1999
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction with respect to the process and questions
proposed for the 1999 Citizen Survey.
2. BACKGROUND: The City conducted citizen surveys in 1982, 1985, 1987, and 1995.
These surveys measured what Plymouth residents thought about the City and the services it
provides. The City Council recently included a Citizen Survey in its 1999-2000 Goals and
Priorities.
3. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could decide not to proceed with a Citizen Survey
at this time.
4. DISCUSSION: Citizen surveys conducted at regular intervals are excellent ways of
measuring, over time, how citizens feel about their community, its governance, and the
services provided. A citizen survey can be used to assess community needs, to do long
and short-term planning, to evaluate public services and policies, and to indicate that the
City is receptive to suggestions and ideas of its citizens. Citizen surveys are typically not
effective when conducted for other purposes, such as to educate citizens, to collect
information that already exists, or when used as votes on political issues.
The surveys previously conducted by the City have contained many identical questions for
tracking purposes, and each survey included questions which related to "issues of the
day." The surveys have been useful in identifying desired service levels and assessing
community needs and desires. In addition, the 1999 Citizen Survey could provide
important information in the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Since the Comprehensive
Plan process is on a tight time schedule, it is imperative that the survey be completed
quickly so the results can be incorporated in that process.
The Citizen Survey would be conducted by a professional survey firm. The consultant
would be responsible for the entire process including question design and pretesting,
sample design and drawing, interviewing, computer analysis, report preparation and
presentation. The survey would be conducted by telephone to approximately 400
Citizen Survey Memo
Page 2
residents, randomly selected by the consultant. A response of 400 residents by telephone
will provide results with a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points,
even when opinions are evenly divided on a question.
The following schedule is proposed for the Citizen Survey:
April 13 Council provides feedback on questions
April 20 Council authorizes Request for Proposals
May 7 Due date for Request for Proposals
May 18 Council awards contract
late May Consultant develops survey instrument
June Conduct survey; Tabulate data
July/August Consultant reviews results with Council and staff
Attached is a list of the questions proposed by staff for the 1999 survey. If a question has
been asked in previous surveys, a checkmark will appear in the appropriate column
indicating the year. The City Council should review the proposed questions and add or
delete any as desired. The exact wording of the questions is unimportant as this will be the
job of the consultant; however, the consultant will need to understand the information
desired so that the appropriate questions can be phrased.
5. BUDGET IMPACT: The City Council established a Citizen Survey Reserve Fund of
25,000 from the 1998 General Fund surplus which should cover the costs of a citizen
survey.
6. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should provide staff with additions or
deletions to the list of questions proposed for the 1999 Citizen Survey.
CATEGORY = .:QUESTION SU 94` -R.'S ;1982 !;.1985 X1987 5413991921199
Demographics Are you registered to vote? V0 0
Demographics Approximately how long in Plymouth? V0 V VO VO
Demographics Immediate prior residence
Demographics What attracted you to Plymouth?
Demographics How long do you expect to live in Plymouth? VO
Demographics Age groups in household
Demographics Own or Rent?
Demographics Own auto? How many? VO
Demographics How many work in Plymouth?
Demographics How many work outside Plymouth?
Demographics In what cities do they work? V
Demographics What type of home do you live in? Single
family detached, townhome/condo., apartment
0
Demographics Do you expect to live in this same home in 10
years?
Demographics If no, will you be living in same type of home
or other type. If other, what type?
Demographics Question on race or ethnicity
Human Rights Primary language spoken at home?
Human Rights Does anyone in your household have a
physical limitation that makes it difficult to
access City services? If so, what?
VO
Human Rights How would you rate the courtesy and respect
you receive in the community. If low, what
do you attribute it to?
Human Rights How do you rate your service received at
restaurants/stores in the community compared
to other people? If low, why?
Council How much contact with Council?
Council Rate work of Council 0 0 V %0
Council Citizens have adequate input to decisions? 40 0 %0
Staff How much contact with staff? 0 %0 0 40 %0
Staff Rate staff job performance 0 %0 0 V %0
Staff Contacted staff within 12 months? 0 V %0
Staff Nature of inquiry 0 0 %0
Staff Satisfied or dissatisfied? 0 VO VO
Staff If dissatisfied, why? 0 0 %0
Rate City Rate quality of life 0 V V VO VO
Rate City Quality over next 5 years? 0 0 1 %0
Rate City What do you like most about Plymouth? 0 VO
Rate City What do you like least about Plymouth?
Rate City How much pride in Plymouth? VO 40 %0
Rate City Would you move from your neighborhood? 40 V 0 0 %0
Rate City Where else would you move? V V 0 0 %0
Rate City If moving, what are important factors? V VO VO 0 %0
Rate City Fire protection - satisfied? V V V
Rate City City street maintenance - satisfied? 0 V 0 %0
Rate City Quality of drinking water - satisfied? V
Rate City Taste of drinking water - satisfied?
Rate City Park Maintenance - satisfied? V0 V V0
Rate City Snowplowing - satisfied? V, V
Rate City Police - satisfied? 0 V V V
Rate City Sewer & Water - satisfied? VO V0
Survey Questions
Page 1
x:CA`rEG(3RY .., .w.,_QUESTIQN.SUMMARY ",",,.l"----, 1982 1985 1 1987. 149-95, " 2999 '
Rate City Animal control - satisfied? 0 V V
Rate City Water/sewer charges - too high/low? VO V V
Rate City Trail plowing - satisfied? V
Rate City Recycling - satisfied? VO
Rate City Rate City as place to raise children 0
Communication Primary source of info. on City V V
Communication What station/publication? V %0 %0 V
Communication Read Sailor, Weekly News, Star Trib?
Communication Receive City newsletter? V VO 0
Communication Read City newsletter? 0 %0 40 0
Communication Newsletter articles most likely to read? 0 %0 V. 0
Communication Do you use Park & Recreation Booklet?
Communication Subscribe to cable TV? 0
Communication Rate city communication to residents ho
Communication Do you own a home computer?
Communication Are you connected to the internet?
Communication Are you aware the City has a web site? 0
Taxes Property taxes - too low/too high 40 0 V V 0
Taxes Any services to cut back? 0
Taxes Any services not to cut back? 0
Taxes What % of taxes goes to City? VO VO VO
Taxes Favor quarterly utility billing vs. Bi -monthly? WO
Planning Principal retail shopping area? VO
Planning Is principal shopping area adequate?
Planning What additional facilities would you like? VO
Planning Code enforcement - too tough/lenient V* VO V
Planning Why do you feel that way? VO VO V
Planning Enforce codes fairly? VO VO
Planning Favor sidewalks in neighborhood? V 40
Planning Rate general appearance of neighborhood VO VO
Planning Support development of affordable housing? V
Planning Support a mixture of housing?
Planning Are there parts of Plymouth that need
redevelopment?
Planning If so, where?
Planning Should City take an active role/spend $ to
encourage redevelopment?
Planning Does Plymouth have adequate housing
opportunities for 1)senior citizens, 2)first-time
homebuyers, 3)renters?
Planning If no (for any of above), should City take
active role ($) in solving problem?
WO
Parks Rate recreation in Plymouth VO
Parks Mix of recreation meet needs?
Parks What additional recreation opportunities
should we offer?
V,
Parks What ages need additional facilities? 0 V
Parks Need more trails on major roads? 0
Parks Need more trails to connect parks?
Parks Need more trails/sidewalks to get to
commercial areas?
Parks Should City spend $ to add trails?
Survey Questions
Page 2
1 25„CATEGORY , . A A QU,,ESTION SIJIVIMARY. y 198,2 ;1985 1987 ;1'995. X1,999, :
Parks Should City spend $ to acquire more open
space?
Parks Should City spend $ open space or add trails?
Parks How often use parks?
Parks Retain one public golf course in City?
Parks If threatened with loss, should City $ support
to retain?
Parks Are you a member of LifeTime Fitness?
Parks If not, have you used LifeTime? VO
Public Safety More crime in your area?
Public Safety Rate confidence in police
Public Safety Feel safe in your neighborhood? VO
Public Safety Aware of neighborhood watch?
Public Safety Safety issues that affect you? 0 VO
Public Safety Concern about neighborhood speeding VO 0
Public Safety Concern about speeding in general in City VO 0
Public Safety Concern about traffic congestion VO
Public Safety Concern about stop sign/traffic signal
violations
Public Safety How prepared is your family for Y2K?
Public Safety How concerned are you about Y2K?
Recycle Which recycling services used in 12 months?
Recycle Why don't use curbside recycle?
Recycle Recycle if mandated by state law?
Recycle Ways to change curbside?
Recycle Support refuse hauling organized collection?
Environment Does your lawn fertilizer contain phosphorus?
Environment Use a contract lawn service?
Environment Rate quality of lakes and wetlands
Environment Favor fee for improving water quality? V
Environment How important to preserve open space?
Transportation Use public transportation? 0 0
Transportation Rate traffic on Hwy. 55, 169, and I-494 V V
Transportation Public transportation currently adequate? V 0
Transportation Additional transportation services - which? VO
Transportation Are you familiar with Metrolink?
Transportation Should areas be added to Dial -a -Ride?
Transportation Support adding lanes to major highways? 0
Transportation If so, should they be HOV lanes?
Transportation Support more local taxes to increase transit
services?
Transportation Should City support regional concept of light
rail?
0
Transportation How do you rate ease of travel by car within
Plymouth?
Transportation How do you rate ease of travel by bicycle
within Plymouth?
Transportation How do you rate ease of pedestrian travel?
Survey Questions
Page 3
CAT_,GOR QVg$,VQN SUMMARY .: 1982: 11985,1 -MT, 1-1995'1'1999:,==
Survey Questions
Page 4
In the past 12 months, about how many times
have you done each of the following:
Participated in Plymouth recreation program?
Used a city park?
Used a city trail?
Rode Metrolink?
Used Dial -a -Ride?
Used Park and Ride?
Attended a City Council or PC meeting?
Viewed a Council or PC mtg. on cable?
Recycled?
Accessed the City's web site?
Open-ended question about vision of
Plymouth
Survey Questions
Page 4
Agenda Number: 6 .
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager '`
FROM: Eric Blank, Director of Parks and RecreatioL-- ,
SUBJECT: LifeTime Fitness- Reduced Summer Rates
DATE: April 9, 1999, for Council Meeting of April 13
1. BACKGROUND: At the April 13 study session, I would like the City Council to review
a proposal we have discussed with LifeTime regarding reduced summer pool rates. By
now, most of the Council is aware that our existing contract with LifeTime required them
to provide a reduced summer pool rate after they reached a membership goal of 10,000
people. That goal was reached late last summer, and we are now in the process of trying
to put together a program to be experimented with this summer. We have exchanged three
or four options with LifeTime for a reduced summer pool program. Our latest meeting
took place on Wednesday, April 7. At that time, we reached an agreement on an
experimental program to be considered and reviewed by the City Council. In review, the
current daily admissions to the.pool are as follows:
First adult over 17 (pool use only) $6
Children 13-17 & 2nd adult $5
Children 12 and under $3
2. DISCUSSION: After discussing the possibility of trying to develop an actual summer
pass that would be purchased one time and used throughout the summer, Mr. Akradi,
President of LifeTime, felt more comfortable with a program similar to the daily
admission. Dwight and I had proposed this to him as one of our possible options. The
proposal that he has agreed to try is as follows:
Children 14 and under $2
15 and up $5
He probably will set up a separate entrance to the pool for this in order to accurately keep
track of what's going on.
The thing that we are concerned with is the old adage "be careful what you wish for,
because you might get it." The outdoor pool is very popular and on many days is quite
crowded. The outdoor pool by itself is not large enough to accommodate the needs of a
city the size of Plymouth. However, when the outdoor pool is combined with the two
indoor pools, we are in better shape.
Mr. Akradi tells us that over 6,000 Plymouth residents are currently individual or family
members of the club. Our worst fear is that during peak summer days, the pool would
reach capacity, and we would have long lines of daily admission people waiting to get in.
This could be very frustrating for daily admission people who plan their day around using
the pool and then find out they can't get in when they show up. Equally important are the
members who are the ongoing financial backers of the club every month. They could
become frustrated with the large crowds at the outdoor pool, resulting in their
dissatisfaction with both LifeTime and the city.
We have indicated to Mr. Akradi that we are going to review this proposal with you at the
work session and that we would let him know the status of your review as soon as
possible. In order to make this program available to the public, we need a quick answer,
so that we can begin publishing this in the May issue of the city newsletter. The program
will become effective on Memorial Day weekend and run through Labor Day weekend.
Mr. Akradi has asked that I be responsible for determining the success of the program and
making any midstream corrections or modifications. He specifically requested that I visit
the outdoor pool on a regular basis to observe the possible unfavorable conditions that may
be created by a cheap daily admission pass program.
For your information, we also have the reduced rate for low to moderate income residents.
That program would be run and modified as follows: children under 14 would get in for
1, everyone else would get in for around $3.30.
3. ACTION REQUESTED: In discussing this with the city attorney, there is no formal
action necessary by the City Council on this. A general consensus will give staff the
direction we need to work with LifeTime to implement the program in a timely manner
and begin public notification.
EB/np
LIFETIME FITNESS
Facts as of April 8, 1999
Club has 10,400 memberships.
Ward 2 Southwest 55447 21P382
Ward 1 Northwest 55446 1,654
Ward 4 Northeast 55442 11,012
Ward 3 Southeast 55441 1,146
Total City of Plymouth
Wayzata School District
Total City + School District
o 6,194 memberships x 1.75 per membership = 10,839 individuals
March, 1999
April, 1999 projected
Club lost 170 memberships
Club sold 158 memberships
Will lose 170 memberships
Will sell 158 memberships
I Reason for leaving: Overcrowding
2 Reason for leaving: No time to use the club
6,194
1,921
8,115