Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/06/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA JUNE 25, 2012 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 9 2. 6:35 p.m. Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update 3. 7:20 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan 4. 7:50 p.m. Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection 5. 8:05 p.m. Administrative Penalties - Next Steps 6. 8:20 p.m. Police Department Annual Report 7. 9:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 9:25 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 8. Brewer Taprooms 9. May 2012 Monthly Financial Report 10. Elected Official Use of City Fitness Facility Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 9, 2012 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on July 9, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? BACKGROUND: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on July 9, 2012. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 9, 2012 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 9, 2012 Study Session, July 9, 2012 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Beltline LRT Station Area Design Guidelines – Community Development (45 minutes) Review the draft Beltline LRT Station Area Design Guidelines as forwarded by the citizen committee; discuss further steps for the Guidelines and future activities in the Beltline area including having the committee reconvene in September to study and make recommendations related to circulation and access in the station area. 3. Review Draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance – Community Development (30 minutes) Review the proposed ordinance related to lighting and give direction on adopting it. 4. Project Update Highway 100 Reconstruction Project – Public Works (45 minutes) Update Council on recent project development activities and present a final proposed geometric layout prior to Mn/DOT requesting Municipal Consent for this project – Project No. 2005-2000. 5. Pedestrian & Bicycle System Implementation Plan & Policy – Public Works (45 minutes) Continued discussion relating to the proposed CIP and the financial and public involvement plans for the proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments being considered by the Council. 6. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Reports 7. Eliot School 8. NLC Service Line Warranty Program End of Meeting: 9:25 p.m. Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action at this time. This report is being provided to assist with the discussion at the study session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council comfortable with the work undertaken by the task force thus far and the process proposed in this report? BACKGROUND: At the January 17 Council Meeting, the City Council approved 21 members to make up the Community Recreation Facility Task Force. The Task Force met for the first time on January 23 and attended the Study Session presentation conducted by Dr. Ellen O’Sullivan, a well-known expert in the area of Parks and Recreation trends. Dr. O’Sullivan shared trends and emerging directions that may influence facilities and gathering places in the future. After attending Dr. O’Sullivan’s presentation and meeting seven times, the Task Force has: • Reviewed previous surveys; • Toured area community centers; • Discussed and recorded impressions from the facility tours keeping in mind what types of things would potentially be a fit in St Louis Park; • Determined priorities for St. Louis Park based on VISION comments and the surveys; • Reviewed and discussed the facilities that already exist in St. Louis Park (both public and private); • Imagined ideal gathering spaces; • Created an initial program list, quantified and refined the program; and • Assisted in developing this report for the City Council. In addition to City staff, Michael Lamb from the Cunningham Group assisted the Task Force with this process. SUGGESTED PROGRAM COMPONENTS: The City Council appointed the Task Force to provide recommendations to the City Council. The Task Force has had discussions about what program components should be considered in a facility(s) and which ones should not be considered. When this process began, staff anticipated a check-in with the Council in June. The following is a summary of a group consensus which has been reached based on what they believe the community was asking for in the surveys and what types of things are missing in the community on a regular basis. These program elements will be further refined as the process continues. This is a rough draft to let the Council know what types of amenities the Task Force is recommending. A more detailed summary of the process the Task Force has gone through and their recommendations is attached. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Community Recreation Task Force Update At this time, the Task Force is suggesting the following program components be considered in a future facility(s): • Gymnasium; • Drop-in child care; • Community room; • Commons/large gathering space; • Coffee shop/food; • Pool/water play area; • Walking track; • Fitness equipment; • Flex activity rooms for workout classes; and • Parking. The Task Force discussed including a theater and competitive pool at length and decided not to recommend them as part of a future facility. After reviewing the existing facilities in the area, the Task Force believes there are a number of theater options (five in St. Louis Park and two in Hopkins) available. Theaters are expensive spaces to design, program and operate. Often identified user groups have a specific need and it is very difficult to meet all those needs in one facility. Communities that have built theaters are having difficulties programming them. Given the number of options in our City, the Task Force believes staff from the two high schools and the JCC might work with the theater groups to accommodate their needs. Park Nicollet also has a room with theater style seating that is available to reserve for a speaker series or other similar activities. The idea to include a competitive pool was brought forth by the Task Force because the school facilities aren’t large enough to host large meets. The St. Louis Park High School and Junior High currently serve as the host sites for St. Louis Park and Benilde St. Margarets youth swim teams. After several discussions, the consensus of the group was that a competitive swim venue doesn’t fit with a community facility and the other suggested program components. TASK FORCE NEXT STEPS: If the Council concurs with the direction and suggestions from the Task Force, the group will further define/refine the program components, discuss potential locations and suggest a public input process. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost involved in this Task Force process will be paid for out of the Organized Recreation budget. The cost of any future facilities will have to be discussed by the City Council at a future date. VISION CONSIDERATION: This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one of the adopted Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and the related Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use”. Attachment: Task Force Detailed Summary Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager DRAFT 06/15/12 1 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Information and BackgroundInformation and Background Survey and Key Results As part of Vision St. Louis Park and the adopted four strategic directions, an appointed task force is examining the creation of a multi-use civic center. Results from a community survey have helped set priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation, and civic facilities. How important is it to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 3. Natural open space 4. Lighted athletic fi elds (existing fi elds) 5. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) Select exactly three facilities that are most important to add: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Swimming pool - indoor 3. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5. Natural open space1 In a City Council meeting, Dr. Ellen O’Sullivan, a consultant and former Park and Recreation Director, “noted a recurring theme of a multi-generational use facility and unstructured gathering places to keep folks active year-round.” O’Sullivan also emphasized that “the participants felt that any facility should feel welcoming and comfortable, which is critical to anything that is considered a gathering spot.”2 Task Force Charge • Th ink about what is right for St. Louis Park instead of replicating what other cities have. • Ask what outcomes people want in a recreation facility to make sure it will meet specifi c community needs. Task Force Members Sam Abelson John Basill Rick Beane Jim Beneke Andy Ewald Sophia Flumerfelt Lisa Greene City Staff Cindy Walsh Rick Birno Meg McMonigal 1 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC. Executive Summary, Report of Findings, City of St. Louis Park Community Survey of Future Civic and/or Recreational Facilities Needs and Interest. 2 Council Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2012. John Herbert Laurie Hynes Claudia Johnston-Madison Manuel Jordan Gregg Lindberg Joel Odens Sandy Olevitch Sean Walther Marney Olson Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. Consultant Team Karoline Pierson Melanie Schumacher Erin Slattengren Chuck Souvignier Mary Walters Tom Worthington Shirley Zimmerman Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 3 DRAFT 06/15/12 2 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Summary of Facilities Tours As a group, the task force visited three metro area facilities: Edinborough (Edina), Chaska Community Center (Chaska), and Eden Prairie Community Center (Eden Prairie). Purpose • To look at sample community centers in the metro area. • To establish a common baseline of knowledge and information among task force members. Process Representatives from each community center led formal tours for the group. Most members of the task force who did not tour with the group were able to visit each of the facilities at another time. After the tours, task force members wrote responses to the following survey questions about each of the three facilities: 1. One thing you liked and why? 2. One thing you didn’t like and why? 3. One thing that you think would be a good fi t for St. Louis Park? Findings Survey responses and general discussion revealed the following impressions: • Edinborough: It’s like a tired, noisy mall, but the park-like setting feels nice in the winter. • Chaska: It is the Cadillac of community centers (it has everything), but it feels disjointed and poorly organized. • Eden Prairie: It has a great variety of uses, but it’s too fi tness-focused and too competitive. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 4 DRAFT 06/15/12 3 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Summary of Meetings Task Force Meeting #1 (with Ellen O’Sullivan) January 23, 2012 • Identify the most common qualities related to ambience and feeling: welcoming, inviting, engaging, energetic, place for youth, inclusive, community pride and connected with nature. • General purpose: community gathering place. • Specifi c amenities: indoor water park/pool, focus on arts, space for older adults, technology and tech-free zones, play space, walking track, cafe, outdoor gathering. Task Force Meeting #2 (with Kathy Schoenbauer) February 8, 2012 • Review survey community recreation results. Task Force Facilities Tour Meeting #3 February 28, 2012 • Look at sample community centers in the metro area. • Establish a common baseline of knowledge and information among task force members. Task Force Meeting #4 March 5, 2012 • Discuss and record impressions from facilities tours. • Determine priorities for a St. Louis Park facility. Task Force Meeting #5 April 9, 2012 • Understand what is off ered by existing facilities in St. Louis Park. • Review priorities for a St. Louis Park facility. • Review the process leading to priorities. • Create an initial program wish list for a St. Louis Park facility. • Imagine an ideal gathering space and bring a photo of it to the next meeting. Task Force Meeting #6 May 7, 2012 • Quantify and refi ne the program. • Review related project examples. Task Force Meeting #7 June 4, 2012 • Review refi ned program. • Review report to SLP City Council. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 5 DRAFT 06/15/12 4 Each task force member selected a photo that best represents a community gathering space appropriate for the recreation facility. Six are shown below. Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Precedent Photos Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 6 DRAFT 06/15/12 5 Area SqFt Notes Gym 12,000 80x100w/lockersandstorage;climbingwallingym? Futureuses? DropͲinchildcare 1000 Communityroom2200 Programmablefordifferentages?Meetingroomson secondfloor?Cateringkitchen? Commons/gathering 3600 Centralareawhereallroomsconnect,flexibleseatingfor 100,couldconnecttocommunityroom,fireplace? Coffeeshop/snackbar 1000 Dedicatedwithinthecommons Pool/waterplayarea 10,500 25yd6Ͳlane+pooldeck+2000SF,morecasual,familyͲ orientedatmosphere Kids'play/flexarea 4500 Softfloor/largemotorroom TrackͲaround/overgym N/A 10'lanes(2walkers,2joggers)10laps/mile,1mile=5280 feet Fitness/equipment 2200 Howmanyusers?Whatactivities?Morelikethesizeofa hotelworkͲoutroom,referenceMCTC Flexactivity/workout/class2200 ExerciseareaͲlocatedadjacenttokidsplayarea?Three rooms/spaces Backofhouse 3000 Storage/mech/elec/elevatorroom Outdoorspace N/A Tobedetermined Parking N/A 227spaces(percitystaff) Subtotal 39,200 NonͲassignableSF@.35 14,770 Mechanical,walls,corridors,restrooms,etc. Total 56,970 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Working Program Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 7 DRAFT 06/15/12 6 Community Recreation Facility Task Force Summary of Process Graphic Working Program Gym 12,000 SF Swimming Pool & Water Play Area 10,500 SF Running/Walking Track 8 laps/mile Commons/Gathering Space 3,600 SF Coff ee Shop & Support 1000 SF Drop-in Day Care 1000 SF Fitness/Equipment Room 2,200 SF Kids’ Play Area 4,500 SF Community Room & Offi ce 2,200 SF Flex Activity/Workout/Class 2,200 SF Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Page 8 Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report summarizes work performed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”) in 2011 and outlines the intentions of PRAC for work to be performed in 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the actions of the PRAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council? BACKGROUND: On January 23, 2012, the Council reviewed and discussed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commissions annual report and work plan. From that discussion, the Council indicated that they would like to meet with a representative(s) from the Commission at such time the Community Recreation Facility Task Force was ready to report back to the Council. That time has now arrived. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission considers matters pertaining to long-range park and recreation plans and may offer recommendations in new development areas in relation to park and recreation space. The City Council may request the Commission to study and advise on other related items. The Commission consists of seven regular members and one voting youth member. Meetings are held the third Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. . In accordance with Council policy, the 2011 Year End Report and 2012 Work Plan are attached in full for City Council review. Tom Worthington, PRAC Commission chair, and Cindy Walsh will be present at the meeting to review and discuss the status of the 2011 work plan and the 2012 goals. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: The 2012 PRAC Work Plan addresses participation in several focus areas of the Vision Process including being a connected and engaged community; being a leader in environmental steward- ship; and promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all city initiatives. Attachments: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Year End Report Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2012 Work Plan Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (“PRAC”) 2011 Year End Report The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Purpose: The Commission shall study and consider all phases of public parks and recreation and recommend to the City of St. Louis Park and Independent School District #283 a park and public recreation program which best meets the needs of all residents of St. Louis Park. 2011 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Christina Barberot, City Representative, Chair Tom Worthington, City Representative, Vice Chair James Beneke, School Representative Sophia Flumerfelt, Student Representative George Foulkes, School Representative George Hagemann, City Representative Steve Hallfin, City Representative Kirk Hawkinson, City Representative Parks and Recreation Department Staff Cindy Walsh, Director Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary 2011 Highlights Youth Association and city organization representatives attended Commission meetings and provided updates from their associations or organizations. Ideas to foster better relationships with participants, other associations and the city were also discussed. In 2011, the Commission met with Friends of the Arts, Kids around the World, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Historical Society, Soccer Association and the Football Association. Following a presentation by a representative from “Kids around the World”, the Commission recommended staff to partake in the program by donating old playground equipment. The program removes old playground equipment tagged to be replaced, renovates it and ships it to poorer areas or countries at no expense to the City. The playground equipment is then replaced by new equipment that was budgeted for in the Capital Improvement Program. The City of St. Louis Park did donate the playground from Aquila Park to this program. We will continue to work with “Kids around the World” and donate eligible playground equipment as we replace new ones in our park system. Commission members reviewed the Minnehaha Creek corridor and the potential expanding of the corridor to provide additional green space around the creek from Meadowbrook to Louisiana Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan Avenue. The annual Minnehaha Creek cleanup was held on Saturday, May 21 (rescheduled from April 16). The Commission and other volunteers cleaned up the creek area by the MSC and Creekside Park. Commission members visited the idea of installing artificial turf in the High School stadium at the same time Benilde-St. Margaret’s school added it to their field. In response to the inquiry staff conducted a turf feasibility study. Staff and members continued to discuss and included questions on turf in the Community Recreation Study conducted in January of 2011. The Community Recreation Study, created to obtain feedback from the community on what residents what recreation facilities are missing form our system in St. Louis Park, was presented in January of 2011. Following the results of the survey, the Commission, along with Council, toured three community centers in nearby cities. Commission members continue to review and discuss art pieces and proposals throughout the city. Throughout the year, staff presented and discussed Capital Improvement Projects with the Commission. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan 2012 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Tom Worthington, City Representative, Chair George Hagemann, City Representative, Vice Chair James Beneke, School Representative Sophia Flumerfelt, Student Representative George Foulkes, School Representative Kirk Hawkinson, City Representative Vacant, City Representative Vacant, City Representative 2012 Goals  Adult Fitness areas: Council requested the Commission research potential outdoor adult playground / fitness stations.  Athletic Association Relationship: Invite each association to their monthly meetings to continue a positive relationship.  Community Education Advisory Commission (CEAC): Host a joint meeting with CEAC to explore common goals.  Commissions: Meet with other commissions as appropriate.  Community Recreation Facility: Involvement in the ongoing exploration of a city recreation facility(s).  Environmental Stewardship: Connect people in the community with emphasis on environmental items such as organizing the annual Minnehaha Creek Clean up and buckthorn removal. Discuss environmental issues as they arise.  Park User Group Relationship: Assist in facilitating interested groups and other park and recreation users (i.e. Friends of the Arts, Off-Leash Dog Park users, Historical Society, etc.).  Police Advisory Commission: Jointly explore projects such as smoking in the park ban, standardize rules for bike crossings, keeping park restrooms open, etc. [Mr. Hagemann, Spokesperson]  Recreation Resources: Invite Council to participate in exploring the city’s recreation resources via a bike ride.  Staff Appreciation Luncheon: Serve an appreciation luncheon for staff.  Trails and Sidewalks: Be involved in the further study and exploration of the expansions of trails and sidewalks in the City to further the desires of the residents as stated in the Community Recreation Study. 2012 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Work Plan Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council to review Environment/Sustainability Task Force application ranking results and identify 8 to 15 applicants to be appointed. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council need to consider other information in the selection of 8 to 15 persons to serve on the Environment/Sustainability Task Force? BACKGROUND: On March 26, 2012, the City Council discussed public involvement in the City’s environmental policies and initiatives. The discussion centered on “what is missing” in the environmental area? This issue was a topic of discussion going back to 2007 and 2008 as part of the Strategic Direction adopted related to the environment. Specifically, the City Council identified the need to investigate “the need and purpose of an energy and environmental commission”. Below is information regarding past Council discussions on this topic: • February 25, 2008 - Study Session: Discussed Strategic Direction related to the environment and the need for an energy/environmental commission. • September 13, 2010 - Study Session: Environmental Activities Update. • November 8, 2010 - Study Session: Process for Community Input on Environment. • March 26, 2012 - Study Session: Environmental Input Discussion. Review of outline for a time limited task force to define the approach for public input into the City’s environmental/sustainability policies and initiatives. • April 23, 2012 - Study Session: Environmental Input Task Force discussion and review of application process, information and timelines. • May 29, 2012: Report to Council regarding the progress with the application process and next steps set for June 11. Due to lower number of applications at the time of writing the report, Council was informed the application deadline was extended to June 4. • June 11, 2012 – Study Session: it was the consensus of the City Council to review and rank the 25 applications received for the Environment/Sustainability Task Force. As discussed previously, the Council would review the applications and the compiled scores. At the June 25th Study session Council would review this information and select up to 15 members to participate in the time limited Environmental/Sustainability Task force. This group will assist the City Council by recommending the approach the City should use to allow for public input into the City’s environmental/sustainability policies, programs and initiatives. The task force would meet for a limited duration and make recommendation(s) to the City Council no later than December 31, 2012. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Applications were reviewed based on various criteria and each were ranked on a scale of 1 to 25 with 1 being the highest and 25 being the lowest. The following chart is the total composite rankings received from four Councilmembers (6/22/12). Applicant Composite Rank Applicant Total Composite 1 Terry Gips 30 2 Tom Hillstrom 31 3 Kelly Spors 31 4 Timothy Brausen 33 5 Susan Melbye 36 6 Brian Shekleton 37 7 Lisa Genis 42 8 Judy Chucker 44 9 Amy Peterson 45 10 Andrew Emanuele 45 11 Eric Schultz 48 12 Kandi Arries 50 13 Ellen Lipschultz 50 14 Rick Person 51 15 Paul Zeigle 53 Jennifer Glidden 57 Carol Nulsen 57 Gregg Lindberg 59 Russell Redman 60 Matt Hoenck 66 Steven Parsons 66 Carol Schaub 71 Nancy Rose 78 Cookie Kulas 79 Mark Hutchinson 81 Next Steps: Select 8 to 15 members for the task force in accordance with the guidelines set by Council in past discussions. Once members are selected, they will be notified and an orientation meeting will be set along with the guidelines for the limited duration task force. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: “St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.” Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Attachments: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Application Info. – 4/30/12 Minutes from March 26, 2012 on Environment/Sustainability Task Force Minutes from April 23, 2012 on Environment/Sustainability Task Force Minutes from June 11, 2012 on Environment/Sustainability Task Force Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Ray French, Administrative Intern Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Environment/Sustainability Task Force 4/30/12 The St. Louis Park City Council is accepting applications from residents to serve on an Environment/Sustainability Task Force to make recommendations on the approach the City should use to allow for public input into the City’s environmental/sustainability policies, programs and initiatives. The task force would be made up of 8 – 15 residents to volunteer their time and represent various geographic areas of the City. Applicants for the task force will be asked to provide information on their education, experience, activities, interests and work in the area of the environment/sustainability. Applicants will also be asked to describe 3 – 5 main concerns/ideas/activities related to the environment/sustainability that are of most interest to them. Council will review applications and appoint residents to this task force on June 11, 2012 (or other date as determined). Meetings are expected to be scheduled starting in June. The meeting schedule will be determined by staff and task force members. This task force will serve in a voluntary capacity with no compensation and for a limited duration. Recommendations from the task force are to be developed no later than December 31, 2012. Once the recommendations are completed, the work of the task force will end. Applications will be open starting April 30 through June 4, 2012 and can be completed on line at www.stlouispark.org Questions on this should be directed to Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director at 952.924.2519 or ndeno@stlouispark.org Scope of the Volunteer Environment/Sustainability Task Force is as follows: Purpose: To assist the City Council by recommending the approach the City should use to allow for public input into the City’s environmental/sustainability policies, programs and initiatives. The task force would meet for a limited duration and make recommendation(s) to the City Council no later than December 31, 2012. Task force would meet and undertake the following activities: 1. Review background and current information on environmental and sustainability activities, programs, staffing and overall scope of work in all departments of the city and regulatory agencies. 2. Brainstorm ideas on possibilities and look into “what’s missing” regarding public input into sustainability/environmental policies, programs and initiatives of the City. 3. Review other opportunities that could offer resident interaction about environmental issues (including and not limited to: on line forums, create a “friends of the environment”, add to existing City commission or create a new commission, connect residents through on line methods, etc.). 4. Sift through ideas and begin to prioritize the ideas, and develop options/recommendations. 5. Formalize recommendation to the City Council. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Guiding Principles: • The task force will meet as needed to go through the process stated above and develop recommendation(s) for City Council no later than December 2012. • The task force will end after it has finalized/ presented its recommendations. • City Council has the final decision on what the next steps should be and may select all, some or none of the task force recommendations. • If a new “group” or commission is formed, it will be open to residents from across the city who will apply (if task force members want to be on the new “group” or commission, they will receive the same consideration as the rest of the applicants). How does this begin/Timeline? • Applications from residents to serve on task force open April 30 – June 4. • Council receives applications on June 11, 2012. • Council selects members. • Start meetings in June, and process completed no later than December 2012. • Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator with the City, will facilitate the task force. • Other City staff will be present to provide information as needed. • Task Force membership will have a size limitation between 8 – 15 people maximum. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Minutes from March 26, 2012 1. Environmental Input Discussion Ms. Deno presented the staff report. She referenced the background information contained in the staff report, including historical information regarding the formation of the Police Advisory Commission. Councilmember Mavity thanked City staff for the extensive background information included in the report. She suggested the concept where the City could form a resident task force for a limited time, e.g., five meetings. She suggested the first meeting provide background information and be used as an educational meeting to make sure everyone is on the same page; the second meeting could be a brainstorming session; the third meeting could be used to sift through ideas from the brainstorming session and begin to prioritize the ideas; the fourth meeting could be used to discuss various options and discuss whether to form a commission; and the final meeting could be used for making a final recommendation to the City. Councilmember Hallfin acknowledged the City’s desire to remain sensitive to the other boards and commissions and stated he did not believe the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission would feel that an environmental task force would be doing similar work to the work of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. He stated he was in agreement with Councilmember Mavity’s concept for forming a task force. Councilmember Ross stated she was in agreement with Councilmember Mavity’s concept for forming a task force and felt it was a good starting point. She indicated there is a lot that can be done in this community around education, getting new ideas, keeping an eye on what other communities are doing, and trends and shifts outside the City. She stated it will also be important to think about how the City works with other groups, e.g., the Watershed Districts, and to look at what other people are doing creatively to control air and ground pollution, as well as working with refuse providers around recycling issues. She added it would be nice if the City had a group that could serve as the City’s content experts and that could tie all the other commissions together as well. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recognized that staff has already done a lot of good work on environmental issues and this discussion should not be interpreted as a put down of staff. She stated that environmental stewardship is one of the four main Vision goals for the community and the City needs to have a board or some equivalent mechanism whose main focus is environmental issues. She agreed with the framework of Councilmember Mavity’s concept and suggested that the task force be charged with defining the mission and goals of a new board or some equivalent mechanism. She added that the mission could include advising Council on new areas or issues that are emerging related to the environment. Mr. Harmening requested clarification regarding Councilmember Mavity’s concept and stated that under Councilmember Mavity’s approach, the task force would be asked to define the approach the City should take for public input into the City’s environmental policies and initiatives. He indicated the task force could then go through the five meeting process to help define what is missing. If Council wants to move directly to a commission, that should be stated in these meetings up front. He stated it appears that Council wants more of the open ended question on what type of environmental input is recommended for our community. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Councilmember Ross agreed with the concept of formation of a new environmental commission with Council setting the framework for what that commission looks like, outlining its goals, and defining how the commission can assist the City in meeting its Vision, and leaving this open to the task force to recommend. Councilmember Mavity stated there might be other venues available that could offer resident interaction about environmental issues such as someone could create an online forum that could connect residents on various issues, e.g., community gardens. She indicated the task force could then address issues more appropriate for the entire community related to the environment. She supported the City asking residents to sign up for a time-limited task force that may result in the formation of a new commission or that may result in other recommendations for residents related to the environment. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger felt the resulting work of the time-limited task force may result in the formation of a new commission and/or other recommendations. Councilmember Mavity requested the names of the people on the environmental Vision team. Ms. Gothberg suggested that the task force be composed of 8-15 people. Ms. Deno asked if Council wants to select the members of the task force. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger replied in the affirmative. Mr. Harmening stated that staff will prepare a proposal for Council consideration prior to soliciting task force members. He added the proposal will be on the agenda in April. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 8 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Minutes from April 23, 2012 Environment/Sustainability Input Ms. Deno presented the staff report and proposed outline for establishing the environment/ sustainability task force. She explained the purpose of the task force, timeline for meeting, and guiding principles. Councilmember Sanger felt that five meetings may not be enough and the timeline may be too short. She suggested that the guiding principles provide more flexibility to allow more if necessary and to allow the task force to decide if they need more time to complete their work. Ms. Deno agreed to revise the timeline for completing the task force’s work. Mr. Harmening suggested that the City advertise the task force formation and ask interested residents to complete an application and then Council can review the applications to make appointments to the task force. Councilmember Santa stated it will be important to have a balanced membership with representation from all areas of the City as well as certain geographic anomalies, e.g., residents living near Minnehaha Creek. Councilmember Mavity requested that the application form include applicants to list their top three to five environmental issues, ideas or areas of interest. Councilmember Sanger suggested that the application form ask applicants to give an indication of what environmental areas they have been involved with in the past. Councilmember Mavity stated that Council has previously discussed having some kind of mechanism on the City’s website to provide a forum for residents to provide input and share information on environmental issues. She indicated this information could be helpful to the task force in understanding what residents are interested in related to environmental issues. Council discussed this and thought it best of the task force wanted to do something like this, they could make such recommendation to Council. Councilmember Spano stated he does not want Council to shape the work of the task force too much and added it will be important to make sure the task force represents a broad spectrum of issues related to the environment. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 9 Subject: Environment/Sustainability Task Force Member Selection Minutes from June 11, 2012 Environment/Sustainability Task Force Application Review Ms. Deno presented the staff report and 25 applications received for the task force. She noted that no address information for the applicants was included in the public agenda packet. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that Council will need to decide if it wants to narrow the list down from 25 applicants and if so, what criteria should be used to ensure the task force has the appropriate mix of residents. Ms. Gothberg advised that research states that 8-15 persons on a task force will provide the most effective dynamics and it will be easier to keep the group on task. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger indicated that when the community facility task force was appointed, Council did not narrow the group down and appointed 21 people because not everyone will show up to all of the meetings. She requested that Council refer to each of the applicants by the letter associated with their name on the map provided by staff. Mr. Harmening stated that of the 25 applications, 13 are men, 12 are women, and their geographic locations are well disbursed throughout the City with a small cluster in Minikahda Vista. He added that a diversity of interests appear to be represented in the applications. Councilmember Santa felt the number should be narrowed down particularly since the task force will be of limited duration. Councilmember Ross agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recited an email from Mayor Jacobs stating he did not have any strong preference to reject any of the applicants. Councilmember Spano felt that 25 members would be difficult to manage. Councilmember Hallfin felt that 10-15 members would be better and liked the idea of having a set number of representatives from each ward as well as a set number of representatives to serve at large. Ms. Deno stated that staff could develop a score sheet that Council can use to help guide Council through the list in order to make its selections. It was the consensus of the City Council to review the 25 applications received for the Environment/Sustainability Task Force and to rank their selections on a scale of 1 to 25, with 1 being the highest and 25 being the lowest. Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 5 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to proceed with amendments to the City Code to implement the proposed process for Administrative Penalties. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to make this change to the City Code to allow for a simpler and more direct code enforcement procedure? BACKGROUND: Charter Amendment: The Charter Amendment enabling the City to adopt an administrative penalty process was approved by the City Council on March 5, 2012. The amendment was advertised as required by State Law, and became effective on June 15, 2012. Ordinance Amendments: With the Charter amendment completed, the next step is to proceed with amendments to City Code to establish the parameters and procedures for implementing the program. Staff has already presented the attached draft ordinance to the Council at several study sessions. Therefore, the purpose of this report and discussion is to focus on the implementation of the ordinance. Staff conducted several meetings with various departments to work out details for implementing the process. A summary of the implementation is as noted below: Enforcement: Staff works diligently with property owners to try to resolve violations without issuing citations. This means we will try to contact the property owner to discuss the violation in person whenever possible by knocking on the door, or calling to set up an appointment. For the most part, staff operates on a three notice schedule, meaning we send three written notices informing the property owner of the violation. Each notice is more strongly worded than the past, and the final two will include information regarding the potential fines. Some violations will receive fewer notices depending on the nature of the violation. For example, violations with potential impact on health and welfare are required to comply immediately. Also, violations which are very easy to resolve, such as moving a garbage can, will receive fewer notices. Repeat violations also will receive fewer notices since they have already been informed of the nature of the violation through previous contacts with staff. Staff believes we can prevent future violations and on-going neighbor conflicts by resolving the violation in a respectful and informative manner, so staff saves the citation as a last resort to gain compliance. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps If further enforcement is necessary, staff will determine which method to use. Most property owners will comply with code after receiving a citation. Some, however, will require a more formal and stern response. These cases will be turned over to the City Attorney for prosecution in the court system. After talking to the property owner and sending notices to them, staff swill determine which method to pursue. Issuing Citations: Citation forms will be distributed to the various departments that will use them. These Departments include: Community Development, Inspections, Public Works, Parks & Recreation and Fire. This compares to the history of only Community Development and Inspections issuing County citations, which are issued through Hennepin County courts. It is anticipated that the City will initially see an increase in citations issued due to the number of departments that will issue the administrative citations that did not issue the county citations. The initial citations will be for minor violations such as failing to put the trash can away ($25 fine) or failing to shove a sidewalk ($50 fine). Staff believes the fine will encourage people to be more attentive to these duties. To reduce the number of citations issued, staff will begin by informing residents of the new fine, prior to issuing citations. Tracking Citations: When a citation is issued, a copy will be sent to the Finance Department. Fines can be paid in person at the Finance Department or mailed directly. Paying a fine is handled in the same manner as paying utility bills, so additional staff is not required, and the additional time to manage the spreadsheet will be minimal. Assessing Unpaid Citations: At the end of the year, staff in the Finance Department will review the records and add all properties with unpaid citations to the list that is generated for unpaid utility bills. Unpaid citations will follow the same process already in place for notifying and assessing unpaid utility bills. Therefore, additional process does not have to be created to assess unpaid citations. A $30 fee will be added to unpaid citations to cover the cost of this process. Hennepin County adds a $2.50 fee per assessment and the current interest rate on the assessment is 5.85% which is added all at once for the entire year. Conducting an Appeal: A citation may be contested by contacting the City Clerk’s office to set up a hearing. The Clerk will set up the hearing and notify all parties. This process is an expansion of the current appeal process. Under the current ordinance, the appeal is heard by the City Manager or a designee. The new process requires a hearing officer that is not a City staff person, and it also requires that notices be mailed to all parties involved. Administrative Hearing: A hearing will be attended by the hearing officer, enforcement officer and the violator. The hearing officer will review the rules of the hearing, and give each party up to 15 minutes to present the case. Staff’s case will typically consist of a written log of all contacts and inspections, photographs and a copy of the City Code that is being violated. It should take about 3-5 minutes to present. The decision will be made at the conclusion of the hearing, and it is final. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps Hearing Officer - Qualifications: The City will maintain a list of three Hearing Officers at a minimum. Only three are needed based on our projection of conducting 1-2 hearings per year. The Hearing Officers will be attorney’s that do not live in the City. To create the list, staff will complete the following: 1. Advertise for Hearing Officers in the Minnesota Lawyer publication and website. 2. Each applicant confirms that he or she is a practicing attorney that does not live in the City of St. Louis Park, and will submit a resumé. 3. Staff will interview applicant. Interviews will be completed by representatives from various departments. Questions will be asked getting to their experience, availability, and ability to maintain order/run a hearing. 4. Staff will present applications and recommendations to the City Council at a Study Session. At the City Council’s direction, staff will prepare a Resolution appointing the Hearing Officers. The Resolution will be considered at the next regular City Council meeting. Hearing Officer – Terms: The appointment process will be conducted on an as-needed basis, so the Hearing Officers will serve until they either withdraw, or are removed from the list by the City Council. This means staff will initiate the process if: 1. The case load is consistently high and more Hearing Officers are needed. 2. Hearing Officers withdraw their names from the list. 3. The City determines a Hearing Officer can no longer fulfill his/her commitment. This may be the result of an inability to schedule a hearing with this Hearing Officer, or the Hearing Officer does not appear to perform in an unbiased manner. Civil Penalty Fine Schedule: In addition to the ordinance, the City Council, by Resolution, needs to adopt a Civil Penalty Fine Schedule. Staff from all departments that would issue administrative citations worked together to form the draft fine schedule, which is attached for your review. It is written in such a way that each chapter of the City Code has a penalty that covers any violation to that chapter. Some chapters may carry greater penalties than others due to the severity of the violations typically found in that chapter. There are some exceptions listed to each chapter that may require a greater or lesser penalty than the standard penalty for that chapter. These exceptions are listed under each chapter heading. Consideration was given to determine the amount of the penalty so that it is fair, of sufficient amount to gain compliance, and not so much that people will appeal the penalty in the hopes of getting it reduced. For repeat violations, the penalty will double the previous penalty levied, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). NEXT STEPS: 1. July 16, 2012 – City Council conducts first reading of ordinance. 2. August 6, 2012 – City Council conducts second reading of ordinance. 3. October, 2012 – Appoint Hearing Officers. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: It is the intent of the civil penalty process to respectfully resolve code violations in a manner that reduces staff time and ensures all fines are paid. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: Draft Administrative Penalty Ordinance Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Sec. 1-14. Civil Penalties. (a) Purpose. (1) Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this section are intended to provide the public and the city with an informal, cost effective and expeditious alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations of certain ordinance provisions. (2) The procedures are intended to be voluntary on the part of those who have been charged with administrative offenses. At any time prior to the payment of the administrative penalty as is provided for hereafter, the individual may withdraw from participation in the procedures in which event the city may bring criminal charges in accordance with law. Likewise, the city, in its discretion, may choose not to initiate an administrative offense and may bring criminal charges in the first instance. (3) In the event a party participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not pay the monetary penalty which may be imposed, the city will seek to collect the costs of the administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in the event the party is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal violation. (b) Administrative offense defined. An administrative offense is a violation of a provision of this Code and is subject to the administrative penalties set forth in the schedule of offenses and penalties referred to in subsection (h), hereafter. (c) Notice. Any person employed by the city, authorized in writing by the city manager, shall, upon determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator, or in the case of a vehicular violation, attach to the vehicle a notice of the violation. Said notice shall set forth the nature, date and time of violation, the name of the official issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled penalty. (d) Payment. Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven days of the time of issuance of the notice, pay the amount set forth on the schedule of penalties for the violation. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall be deemed to be an admission of the violation. (e) Appeal. Any person who is required by the city to pay an administrative penalty may make a written appeal of the penalty to the city manager, or designee, within seven days of notice by the city of the penalty. The city manager, or designee, will have authority to reduce the fine or determine whether the appellant is to be charged with a penalty. (f) Failure to pay. In the event a party charged with an administrative offense fails to pay the penalty, a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge may be brought against the alleged violator in accordance with applicable statutes. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps (g) Disposition of penalties. All penalties collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to the city and may be deposited in the city's general fund. (h) Offenses and penalties. Offenses which may be charged as administrative offenses and the penalties for such offenses may be established by resolution of the city council from time to time and listed in appendix A to this Code. (i) Subsequent offenses. In the event a party is charged with a subsequent administrative offense within a 12-month period of paying a penalty for the same or substantially similar offense, the subsequent administrative penalty shall be increased by $10.00 above the previous administrative penalty. *** (a) Purpose. 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 mechanism, there are certain negative consequences for both the city and the accused. The delay inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution. The higher burden of proof and the potential of incarceration do not appear appropriate for most Code violations; and the criminal process does not always regard city code violations as being 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 is in addition to any other legal remedy that may be pursued for city code violations. (b) Alternative methods of enforcement. (1) The administrative hearing process provided for in this Article shall be in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations. (2) The city may initiate a civil enforcement action to obtain code compliance before, during or after an administrative enforcement proceedings. (3) If the final adjudication in the administrative penalty procedure is a finding of no violation, then the city may not prosecute a criminal violation in district court based on the same set of facts. This does not preclude the city from pursuing an administrative penalty or a criminal conviction for a violation of the same provision of the City Code based on a different set of facts. A different date of violation will constitute a different set of facts and a separate offense. (c) General provisions. (1) A violation of a provision of the city code or a violation of the terms and conditions of a city approval, including permits and licenses, required and granted under this code is an administrative offense that may be subject to an administrative citation and civil penalties. Each day a violation exists constitutes a separate offense. (2) An offense may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $2000.00 per separate offense. (3) The city council will adopt by ordinance a schedule of fines for offenses initiated by administrative citation. The city council is not bound by the schedule when a matter is appealed to it for administrative review. (4) The city council may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing officers for his or her services. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps (d) Administrative citation. (1) A person authorized to enforce provisions of the city code may issue an administrative citation upon belief that a code violation has occurred. The citation must be issued in person or by first class mail to the person responsible for the violation. 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. If the city seeks to impose more than one fine for a continuing violation, a separate citation shall be issued for each violation date. (2) The person responsible for the violation must either pay the scheduled fine or request a hearing within ten calendar 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 will be imposed in accordance with section 1-14(h). (e) Administrative hearing. (1) The city council will periodically approve a list of attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota, from which the city manager will randomly select a hearing officer to hear and determine a matter for which a hearing is requested. The accused will have the right to request no later than five calendar days before the date of the hearing that the assigned hearing officer be removed from the case. One request for each case will be granted automatically by the city manager. A subsequent request must be directed to the assigned hearing officer who will decide whether he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. The city enforcement officer may remove a hearing officer only by requesting that the assigned hearing officer find that he or she 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 will assign another hearing officer. The hearing officer must not be a city employee. The city manager must establish a procedure for evaluating the competency of the hearing officers, including comments from accused violators and city staff. These reports must be provided to the city council. (2) Upon the hearing officer's own initiative or upon written request of a 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 is responsible for serving the subpoena and for paying the fees and expenses of a witness in accordance with the same rules governing civil lawsuits in state court. 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 hearing officer may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. A person who, without just cause, fails or refuses to attend and testify or to produce the required documents in obedience to a subpoena is guilty of a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the party requesting the subpoena may seek an order from district court directing compliance. (3) Notice of the hearing must be served in person or by mail on the person responsible for the violation at least 10 calendar 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 will not apply. The hearing Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 8 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps officer must tape record the hearing and receive testimony and exhibits. The officer must receive and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of their affairs. (4) The hearing officer has the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a citation, to impose or modify (increase or decrease) the scheduled fine, and to modify, 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 reoccurrence 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 i. Any other factors appropriate to a just result. (5) The hearing officer's decision and supporting reasons must be in writing. (6) Except for matters subject to administrative review under subsection (f) Appeal to City Council, the decision of the hearing officer is final without any further right of administrative appeal. (7) The failure to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's rights to an administrative hearing and an admission of the violation. A hearing officer may waive this result upon good cause shown. Examples of “good cause” are: 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” does not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay. (f) Appeal to City Council. (1) The hearing officer's decision in any of the following matters may be appealed by a party to the city council for administrative review by submitting a request in writing to the city clerk within 10 calendar days after the hearing officer's decision: a. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval typically granted by the city council as required by an ordinance; b. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, of the conditions attached to the permit, license, or approval, that was granted by the city council; and (2) The appeal will be heard by the city council after notice served in person or by registered mail at least 10 calendar days in advance. The parties to the hearing will have an opportunity to present oral or written arguments regarding the hearing officer's decision. (3) The city council must consider the record, the hearing officer's decision, and any additional arguments before making a determination. The council is not bound by the Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 9 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps hearing officer's decision, but may adopt all or part of the officer's decision. The council's decision must be in writing. (4) If the council makes a finding of a violation, it may impose a civil penalty not exceeding $2,000.00 per violation, and may consider any or all of the factors contained in section 1-14(e)4. The council may also modify, stay, or waive a fine unconditionally or based on reasonable and appropriate conditions. (5) In addition to imposing a civil penalty, the council may suspend or revoke a city-issued license, permit, or other approval associated with the violation, if the procedure in the city code for suspension or revocation has been followed. (g) Judicial review. An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer or the city council in accordance with state law. (h) Recovery of civil penalties. (1) If a civil penalty is not paid within the time specified, it constitutes: a. A personal obligation of the violator; b. An obligation of a business or person(s) that is conducting an activity licensed by the City if the violation relates to the maintenance of the property or to an activity, use or delivery of services associated with the business or activity; and c. A lien upon the real property upon which the violation occurred if the violation relates to the maintenance of the property or to an activity, use or delivery of City services associated with the property. (2) A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as taxes. The lien may include the administrative and legal costs incurred by the city in connection with collecting the unpaid administrative penalty. Prior to assessing the lien against the property, the city must attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the administrative penalty and provide the property owner listed on the tax record with notice and an opportunity to be heard. (3) A personal obligation may be collected by any appropriate legal means. (4) A late payment fee of 10% of the fine will be assessed for each 30-day period, or part thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date. (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. (6) Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending, revoking, denying, or not renewing a license or permit associated with the violation. (i) Applicable laws. Where differences occur between provisions of this chapter and other applicable code sections, this chapter applies. *** Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 10 Subject: Administrative Penalties - Next Steps APPENDIX A – 2011 FEE SCHEDULE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Administrative Penalties First Violation $25 Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine Chapter 4 – Animal regulations $50 Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations ---- Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100 Chapter 8 – Businesses and Business Licenses $100 Chapter 12 - Environment $50 Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100 Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100 Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50 Chapter 14, Section 75 - Open burning without permit $100 Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50 Chapter 22 - Solid Waste Management $50 Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200 Chapter 24 - Streets, sidewalks & Public Places $50 Chapter 24, Section 24 -43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way $25 Chapter 24, Section 50 - Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150 Chapter 24, Section 51 - Sweeping leaves into street prohibited $100 Chapter 24, Section 151 - Work in public right-of-way without a permit $100 Chapter 26 - Subdivision $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval. $750 Chapter 32 - Utilities $50 Chapter 36 – Zoning $50 Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval $750 Repeat Violations within 24 Months. Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections. Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections. Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 6 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Special Meeting Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other: TITLE: Police Department Annual Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action requested or required. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Some policies and procedures will be touched upon during command staff presentations. Staff would welcome any Council questions or feedback related to the operation of the Police Department. BACKGROUND: The attached Annual Report contains a summary of the police department’s 2011 activities in both narrative and numerical form. The Annual Report also contains an organizational chart, and each command staff member will be making a brief presentation of 2011 highlights for his or her workgroup. The command staff officers will highlight significant events or incidents and will also outline the highest volume categories of work. In addition, command staff officers will rely upon the community policing philosophy when explaining how community partnerships and cooperation among other City departments assist us in addressing quality of life issues to more effectively prevent or reduce crime and disorder in St. Louis Park. Command staff officers in attendance and their presentation topics are as follows: Deputy Chief Kirk DiLorenzo: • Tactical Operations/ERU • Domestic Violence/Cornerstone • Solicitor Licensing/Enforcement Lt. Chad Kraayenbrink: • Patrol Operations Lt. Lori Dreier: • Dispatch • Community Outreach • Neighborhood Liaison • Website • Request Partner Lt. Mike Harcey: • Support Services Operations (Investigations) • School Liaison/DARE Officers • Drug Task Force Officer FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: 2011 Annual Report Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 1 Police Department 2011 Annual Report Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 2 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Mission/Operating Philosophy/Values 1 Organizational Chart 2 Administration 3 Operations/Patrol 4 Police District Map 5 Neighborhood Map 6 Support Services/Drug Task Force/School Liaison Program 7 Community Outreach 8-10 Emergency Communications Center 10 Community Service Officers/Police Reserves/Police Explorers 11 Training 12 Crime Prevention Fund 12 Records/Information Management 13 Crime Analysis and Problem Solving 13-17 CAD and Records Management Systems 14-15 Request Partner 15 Crime Free Ordinance 16-17 Graffiti Abatement 17 Police Incident Mapping 17 Crime Set Databases 17 Annual Crime Statistics 18-24 Juvenile Offenses 19 Calls for Service 20 2010/2009 Crime Comparison 21 2010 Clearance Rates 22 2010 Part I Crimes by Neighborhood 23 2010 Part II Crimes by Neighborhood 24 Graphs Total Calls For Service 25 Res. vs. Bus. Burglary 35 Calls by Time of Day 26 Theft 36 Calls by Day of Week 27 Motor Vehicle Theft 37 Calls by Month of Year 28 Arson 38 Part I Crimes 29 Part 2 Crimes 39 Homicide 30 Forgery 40 Rape 31 Fraud 41 Robbery 32 Vandalism 42 Assault 33 DWI 43 Burglary 34 Narcotics 44 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 4 11 MISSION The mission of the St. Louis Park Police Department is to provide citizens with quality service, professional conduct, and a safe environment in which to live, work and learn. We are committed to an active partnership with our community as we work together to solve problems and prevent crime and disorder. OPERATING PHILOSOPHY • A total commitment to community-oriented policing. • To strive continually to provide effective and efficient services. • To provide a positive work environment for employees. CORE VALUES The following values are fundamental to the success and fulfillment of the St. Louis Park Police Department’s Mission and Goals: • We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. • We believe that the prevention of crime and disorder is the best and most economical solution to law enforcement. • We recognize our interdependent relationship with the community we serve and are continually sensitive to changing community needs. • We believe that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence, and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. • We believe that our employees are the department’s greatest resource and, as professionals, are continually striving to improve the quality of their skills. • Our department’s mission, values and goals are at all times in harmony with the mission, values and goals of the City of St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 5 22 St. Louis Park Police Department 2011 Organizational Chart CHIEF OF POLICE DEPUTY CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS/ COMMUNITY OUTREACH Lieutenant (1) Dispatchers (7) Community Outreach Officer (1) Community Liaison (1) PATROL Lieutenants (1) Patrol Sergeants (6) Patrol Officers (26) CSO Coordinator (1) CSO’s/Cadets (3) SUPPORT SERVICES Lieutenant (1) Support Services Sergeants (2) Support Services Agent (1) Support Services Officers (6) School Liaison/DARE (3) Drug Task Force (1) OFFICE MANAGER RECORDS/CLERICAL Office Assistant III (1) Office Assistant II (4) Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 6 3 ADMINISTRATION The purpose of this division is to perform all administrative duties and carry out policies and procedures as directed by the City Manager and City Council. Other aspects of the Administrative Division include: budgeting, contract administration, training, recruiting, internal investigations and computer applications. Budget: The Chief of Police works with other department staff to prepare and propose the department budget to the City Manager and Finance Director. Police Services are funded through the General Fund. The actual budgeted expenditures of the 2011 Police Protection and Communications budgets totaled $7,208,262. As is the case with most local government budgets, the majority of expenditures are in personal services (salaries and benefits). The 2011 budget had an allocation of $6,599,679 for salaries and benefits, approximately 91% of the total budget. The graph below depicts how budgeted funds are allocated. 2011 Police Department Budget Allocations 91% 2%7% Other Services and ChargesSupplies Personal Services Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 7 4 OPERATIONS The police department has a Deputy Chief and three Lieutenants who oversee department operations including Patrol, Support Services, Community Outreach and Special Assignments. PATROL The Patrol Division consists of six sergeants and twenty-six patrol officers who primarily work a combination of 10- and 12-hour shifts. Day shift 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Relief shift 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Middle shift 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 am. and 4:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Dog watch 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The shifts overlap to provide more comprehensive coverage during shift changes, to provide extra manpower during peak periods of activity, and to allow officers to work on community policing projects. Officers rotate on a 3 days on, 3 days off and 4 days on, 4 days off schedule. Officers are assigned to the same shift for one year and are assigned to either A side or B side. Sergeants rotate on a 4 days on, 4 days off schedule and supervise both A side and B side officers. This allows the sergeants a better opportunity to supervise, coach and mentor officers working both A and B side. A normal shift will have one officer covering one of the four patrol districts (see map on page 7). The sergeant on duty is responsible for overseeing department operations at headquarters and also provides road supervision and assistance when necessary. The four patrol districts are further divided into 35 neighborhoods (see map on page 7) which allow for a more detailed crime analysis. The analysis is used to determine unusual activity in an area and for developing trends. If an abnormality is found, patrol activity can be analyzed and adjustments in the patrol routine can be made. This type of analysis is also used in community policing/community outreach efforts to establish neighborhood watch areas and develop special programs and strategies to reduce the likelihood of crime. The department has adopted the community-oriented policing philosophy, which is based on problem solving and the promotion of ownership relationships with the community. The department uses the S.A.R.A. model (Scan, Analyze, Respond, and Assess) for problem- solving, and all sworn officers have received substantive training in problem solving and other aspects of community policing. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 8 5 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 9 6 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 10 7 SUPPORT SERVICES The Support Services Division is comprised of a lieutenant, two sergeants, one agent and 11 police officers in various special assignments. The police officers are assigned to geographical areas of the city in an effort to develop relationships with business owners and citizens and better analyze trends in crime and disorder occurring in neighborhoods. The sergeants and patrol officers are on a 3-year rotation. A Support Services Lieutenant or Sergeant reviews all police reports and assigns those warranting further investigation to an officer. The officers are responsible for following up on assigned cases and for collecting evidence relating to each case. They are also responsible for taking statements from victims, suspects and witnesses. This information is compiled into a case file which is then presented to the City or County Attorney for review and possible prosecution. The Support Services Division is also responsible for managing the department property and evidence room, monitoring pawn shops, predatory offender registration compliance, monitoring compliance with the alcohol and tobacco laws, doing liquor license investigations and providing training for licensed liquor establishments in the City. DRUG TASK FORCE The department participates in the Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force, which includes officers from Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office. The task force members work together to conduct undercover operations and drug enforcement. One St. Louis Park patrol officer is assigned full time to the task force; however, other officers may assist with task force activities during their off-duty time or as assigned. SCHOOL LIAISON PROGRAM / D.A.R.E. PROGRAM The department has three officers assigned as School Liaison Officers during the school year. These officers serve as resources for the students, teachers and school administrators. One of the officers is assigned to St. Louis Park Senior High and Benilde- St. Margaret’s. Another officer is assigned to the St. Louis Park Junior High. This officer also teaches the 7th grade D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program. The third officer teaches the D.A.R.E. Program to fifth grade students and also serves as school liaison to Aquila, Cedar Manor, and Susan Lindgren schools. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 11 8 COMMUNITY OUTREACH The police department has a civilian Community Liaison whose role is to support the City’s 35 neighborhoods and help them become stronger. There are currently 27 organized neighborhood associations within St. Louis Park. The Community Liaison and Community Outreach Officer work closely to communicate information to both block captains and neighborhood leaders and connect the two groups when appropriate. The Community Liaison facilitates the neighborhood grant program. The grant program was established to support neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together. Financial support is provided for special projects initiated by residents to address issues, implement ideas or create opportunities that are meaningful and important to their neighborhoods. In addition to the grant program, the Community Liaison plans and facilitates an annual Neighborhood Leaders Forum that provides neighborhood leaders an opportunity to meet and learn from each other. The Community Liaison also facilitates monthly Outreach Connection meetings that allow city departments to share what they are doing within the neighborhoods in St. Louis Park. Communication between city departments and with neighborhoods is crucial for keeping the community connected and engaged. The police department also has one sworn police officer assigned to community outreach. This officer coordinates citywide programs such as Neighborhood Watch, Operation Identification, and National Night Out. This officer also coordinates the crime free multi- housing program, prepares neighborhood surveys, coordinates neighborhood meetings and addresses a variety of civic, school, resident, and business groups on matters relating to personal safety and ways to reduce the likelihood of becoming a crime victim. Some of the Community Outreach Programs in 2011 include: Neighborhood Watch: This program involves the active participation of neighborhood residents in cooperation with law enforcement to reduce crime in the community. Neighbors watch each other’s houses and keep an eye out for unusual behavior or unfamiliar people and cars. There are over 300 Neighborhood Watch groups in the City. Each Watch group has a block captain who hosts meetings and acts as a contact person with the police department. Also part of Neighborhood Watch is National Night Out. National Night Out takes place the first Tuesday in August and is an evening when neighbors are encouraged to join together to take back their neighborhoods and show support against crime. In 2011 there were over 130 organized block parties. Bicycle Patrol Program: The bike patrol works primarily in the City's parks and trails, interacting with the public, answering questions and providing information and literature about the City and the parks. Both sworn police officers and police reserve officers served as bike patrol in 2011. (See page 8 for further information on the Police Reserves.) Bike patrol also works with other agencies on problem areas. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 12 9 Police Substations (COP Shops): In an effort to provide district police officers resources within the neighborhoods they serve, the St. Louis Park Police Department utilizes several substations (COP Shops) located throughout the city. These COP Shops are equipped with all the necessary resources for officers to write reports, meet with community members and maintain a presence in the neighborhoods. Currently, there are four COP Shops located at : 1. Meadowbrook Apartments 2. Texatonka Shopping Center 3. Excelsior and Grand 4. West End Complex Home and Business Premise Surveys : Upon request, an officer will complete a Premise Survey of homes and businesses in St. Louis Park and advise the owners of things that can be done to provide better security for their homes or businesses. Neighborhood Surveys: Neighborhood surveys are distributed and color-coded by neighborhood so that citizen input can be used to identify problems and initiate problem- solving strategies. Districts will be surveyed on a revolving basis, so that progress and changes can be evaluated approximately every two years. 394 Virtual Block Club: This program is designed to improve communication between business owners/managers along the 394 corridor and their local police departments. Cities involved in this project stretch from Minneapolis to Wayzata. Citizens Police Academy: This six-week training program is an opportunity for citizens who live or work in St. Louis Park to interact with members of the police department, increase their understanding of the role and function of the police department, and learn how citizens can play an integral part in crime prevention. Some of the topics covered include the history and philosophy of the police department, training, patrol operations, use of force, dispatch center operations, investigations, and narcotics. Participants have the opportunity to tour the police department and jail, ride-along in a squad car with a police officer, and participate in hands on demonstrations. Chaplains Program: The department has seven volunteer Chaplains that are available to provide professional, non-denominational services for police department employees and their families and also for citizens. The Chaplains are available on call and also participate in ride-alongs with officers and other department activities. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 13 10 Crime Free Multi-Housing Program: This is a three-phase program designed to reduce the incidents of crime and disorder in rental property. Phase 1 is an 8-hour training seminar for apartment owners and/or managers. Phase 2 is a survey of the apartment complex to make sure it meets minimum security requirements. Phase 3 is a crime prevention meeting for tenants. Police officers are assigned to rental properties in their districts. Each officer has continued contact with apartment managers and owners to discuss various issues. The Crime Free Multi-Housing ordinance was enacted in 2007. It provides an effective tool for rental property owners and managers. The police department facilitates the mandatory 8-hour training for all rental license holders, as well as verifying lease violations. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER In 2011, the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) was staffed by nine full time dispatchers and a lead dispatcher. A minimum of two dispatchers were on duty twenty-four hours per day. The dispatchers use Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in conjunction with an integrated E911 system to process calls for service and manage information critical to responding police, fire and medical units. Calls for service are also sent electronically to responding police officers via a mobile computer (MCD) system. The PSAP also provides 9-1-1 and non-emergency dispatching services for the City of Golden Valley. In 2011, our PSAP answered 30,233 911 calls for service. 70% of those calls were received from cell phones while 27% were received from land lines. An estimated 70,000 additional non-911 calls were received in the Communications Center. Dispatched calls for service for each city break down as follows: 2011 Police 30,233 Fire 4,034 34,539 E9-1-1:. Dialing 9-1-1 connects a caller to the PSAP by way of dedicated telephone circuits. A computer provides the emergency dispatcher with a visual display of a caller's telephone record; usually subscriber name, address and phone number. A keystroke allows this information to be instantly transferred to the CAD system to start a call for service. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 14 11 COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS Community Service Officers (CSO's) provide various support services to the department. They relieve sworn personnel of certain duties which can be performed by non-licensed employees, such as maintaining police equipment, issuing citations for non-moving violations, watching and feeding prisoners, running errands, and giving tours to visitor groups. During 2010, the department had one full-time CSO Coordinator and three part- time CSO’s/Cadets. The CSO Coordinator is responsible for training and evaluating the CSO's/Cadets as well as coordinating and prioritizing their activities. Cadets are hired on a temporary, part-time basis and must be attending an accredited post-secondary law enforcement program while employed with the intent to become a licensed police officer. POLICE RESERVES The police reserves are a valuable asset to our community. Created in 1975, the reserves patrol with sworn officers, assist with crowd control at civic, sporting and school related events, assist at scenes of accidents, natural disasters, and emergencies, and assist in special assignments, such as the bicycle patrol program. The department's reserve officers share an excellent reputation and are frequently asked to assist neighboring communities. In order to qualify for the police reserves, candidates must successfully complete a 10-hour training program. Uniforms and equipment are then provided by the City. Officers attend monthly meetings where they receive training on current events and new procedures. Some of the reserve officers are enrolled in college law enforcement programs, while others have or are pursuing careers outside of law enforcement. During 2011, reserve officers donated over 1,950 hours to the City. POLICE EXPLORER POST #505 Explorer Post #505 is sponsored by the department and chartered by the Boy Scouts of America. The purpose of exploring is to provide career development and direction for youths ages 15 through 20. The Explorers participate in training programs and assist the department with various functions such as distributing crime watch flyers and helping out at the Halloween party and other events. Explorers also ride along with officers. Much of the money used for training and special events comes from fund raising events sponsored by the Explorer Post. The City also provides funding for uniforms and training. In addition, Explorers are required to furnish many of their own items for Exploring events and duties. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 15 12 TRAINING Department training is coordinated by a Lieutenant. To comply with legal mandates, each police officer must successfully complete a minimum of 48 hours of approved law enforcement related continuing education every three years. The training must be registered with the P.O.S.T. Board (Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training) in order for officers to renew their licenses. Consequently, training of officers is extensive and ongoing. All officers are required to receive yearly training in the use of force. Most of this training is done by certified instructors who are members of the department. Firearms training is held at the indoor range in the police department. All members of the police department are receiving police/community partnerships training to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the service we provide to the community. Community-oriented policing and problem solving is the central focus of our departmental training. Officers are required by O.S.H.A. to receive yearly refreshers on handling hazardous materials and on blood/air-borne pathogens. Some other ongoing training received by St. Louis Park officers includes legal updates, domestic violence, racially biased policing, handling the mentally ill and vulnerable persons, jail/prisoner procedures, vehicle pursuit/emergency driving and computer training. ST. LOUIS PARK CRIME PREVENTION FUND The St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund has been a valuable asset to the department and the City since 1976. The Crime Prevention Fund is a private, non-profit corporation which is supported by voluntary contributions and forfeiture revenue. This Fund provides a crime tip line which pays cash rewards for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of person(s) who commit crimes in St. Louis Park. The Crime Fund supports many community outreach programs including Neighborhood Watch and National Night Out, St. Louis Park's Police Reserve Program, the Youth Safety Camp and the metro area's Crime Stoppers Program. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 16 13 RECORDS The Records Division consists of an Office Manager and five Office Assistants. The primary role of the records division is to collect, process, disseminate and maintain department records in accordance with Federal and State Data Practices laws and Records Retention requirements. This division performs various administrative and support services including: • Providing information and assistance to the public • Data entry • Typing/transcription • Preparing case files for submission to prosecutors and the district court • Scanning police records into a Document Imaging System • Notifying officers of court appearances and cancellations • Processing department invoices for payment • Maintaining office equipment • Ordering supplies and forms • Assisting with the storage, retrieval and disposal of records and evidence • Preparing crime and incident statistics and other activity reports • Assisting with the preparation and management of the department budget The Records Division uses an automated records management system and documents imaging system for data entry and records storage. These applications allow the retrieval of information from all computerized workstations within the department and also in the police vehicles. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The Information Management Group continues to proactively address crime and quality of life issues and better direct department resources to areas of concern. The group consists of representatives from Patrol, Support Services, Community Outreach, Dispatch and Records. Staff members from other City departments often attend to participate in joint initiatives. The Information Management group creates work processes to review information from a variety of sources, researches and implements software applications to efficiently collect data for analysis, produces various reports for dissemination to the department and works with other members of the department to develop strategies to address crime, disorder and quality of life issues. CRIME ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING In addition to responding to crime and calls for service, the police department collects, analyzes, and disseminates information in an effort to prevent crime and disorder from occurring. The police department also concentrates their problem solving efforts on quality of life issues that affect the well-being of community members. Utilizing established operational strategies, the police department works in partnership with other city departments, residents, business owners and other community members to deliver both proactive and responsive services. Partnerships were crucial to the development of an effective process for graffiti mitigation as well as the development of a crime free rental program to address crime and nuisance activity in rental property. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 17 14 Operational Strategies: 1. Incident Response: Patrol officers respond to routine calls for service, such as suspicious activity, noise complaints, disturbances. 2. Emergency Response: Patrol officers respond to emergency incidents, such as medical assistance and fires. 3. Criminal Investigations: Work down after a crime has occurred, such as preparing cases for charging, following up on incidents, conducting search warrants, etc. This work is usually completed by a Support Services officer. 4. Preventive/Directed Patrol: Information is collected, analyzed and disseminated to department personnel in an effort to proactively address specific issues, such as traffic complaints. 5. Problem Solving: A systematic process for identifying, analyzing, responding to and assessing an issue that may become a problem. This work includes partnerships with all stakeholders. The Information Management Group will assist in the problem solving process, and officers or other department personnel are responsible for conducting the appropriate response strategies. 6. Collateral Services: Police services such as animal control, the dispatch center and clerical staff who assist officers in their work. The police department utilizes several computer applications to assist with crime analysis and problem solving. These include: CAD and Records Management: The Police Department uses a computerized CAD and Records Management system to track calls and information from police reports and citations. CAD : This system allows the dispatcher to enter calls for service information directly into the computer system at the time of the call. The computer automatically validates the address, identifies the neighborhood and police/fire response district, and keeps track of all running times. The system has the capacity to track alarms, tows, and officer activity. The dispatcher may also enter comments such as suspect descriptions, vehicle descriptions, mode of entry or attack, and other key information. MCD: Mobile computers, installed in patrol cars, are connected to the CAD system by wireless communication. The dispatchers send the calls for service electronically to the computer, so the officer has a visual record. Officers can use the fully functional computers to write reports and manage other information from the patrol car. The MCD's also link to local, state and national crime databases to provide officers with information such as stolen vehicles and wanted persons. RMS: The records management system contains detailed information on calls that generate police reports or citations. Some of the information entered into this system includes the date, time, location and type of incident, names and addresses of parties involved, vehicles and other property involved, arrest and booking information and the status of the incident. After this information is entered into the computer system, department personnel may search one or more of the data fields to obtain information on a Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 18 15 specific case, person, address, property, vehicle license plate, etc. An independent report writer program is also available for more specialized, detailed searches. The records management system also allows the department to track registration information such as predatory offenders who move in and out of the city and persons who apply for permits to purchase handguns. Request Partner: A Web-based system used to track concerns/complaints from citizens about ongoing quality of life issues such as parking, speeding, stop sign violations, noise, animal complaints, drug activity and other suspicious activity. It is also used to request an officer to speak at a meeting/event or to do property safety (premise) surveys. Information from the caller/complainant is entered into a database that automatically generates an e- mail to the appropriate officer for follow-up. The system allows officers to record their actions/responses to the concern and also to keep in contact with the complainant via e- mail. During 2011, the following types of requests were entered and tracked in Request Partner: 46 16 9 7 5 5 4 3 1 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Speaker Reserves Projects Directed Speed Premise Animal Noise Parking Transients Other City departments using Request Partner include Community Development and Inspections to track property maintenance and zoning issues. Public Works, Inspections and Parks & Recreation have been using Request Partner to track graffiti in the parks and on private property. Use of this system allows departments to share information and resources. Crime Free Ordinance: The Crime Free Multi-Housing ordinance was enacted in 2007. It provides an effective tool for rental property owners and managers. The police department facilitates the mandatory 8-hour training for all rental license holders, as well as verifying lease violations. Evaluations of the training have been overwhelmingly positive and we are contemplating offering on-going training in the future for those managers/owners who would like to attend. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 19 16 Easy Tracking ™ was developed to store, track and disseminate all information associated with the Crime Free Ordinance. This software package allows easy access to property and violation information. In addition to the full database, Easy Tracking ™ contains a web- based version so patrol officers can access information from any computer, including the MCD’s in the squad cars. Officers responded to 6,037 calls for service at rental properties in 2011. This represents 20% of all calls for service for 2011. There were 180 verified ordinance violations in 2011, which is 3% of the total calls to rental properties. Of the 180 violations, 69% were 1st violations, 76% were noise violations and 21% of the violations resulted in lease terminations. 92% of the violations occurred at apartment complexes. The first chart below shows the different types of ordinance violations that occurred during 2011. The second chart indicates the property types for those violations. 137 31 8 2 1 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Noise Drugs Disturb Assault Threats Criminal Violation Type 165 5 4 4 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Apartments Duplex Single-Family Townhouse Condo Property Type for Violations Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 20 17 Graffiti Abatement: 2011 was the fifth year for our graffiti abatement process. Representatives from Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Inspections, Communications and the Police Department continued to work together to remove, document and track all graffiti in the city. Graffiti reports were up 29% in 2011 (from 113 in 2010 to 146 in 2011). Of the 35 neighborhoods, 13 have shown a decreases in reported graffiti and 8 others had no reported graffiti incidents. 14 neighborhoods showed slight increases in reported graffiti cases. Police Incident Mapping: A crime and incident map is available to the public on the City’s website. This map was created by the City’s Information Resources Department and provides a general overview of selected crime and quality of life issues occurring in the city during a 30-day period. The map also provides information at the neighborhood level for a 90-day period. Information is updated on a monthly basis. Data for the map are obtained from the Computer Aided Dispatch system (CAD) and Records Management system (RMS). Crime Set Databases: Several databases were developed by an outside vendor as a tool to provide detailed analysis on certain crime sets, including burglary, robbery, theft from auto, auto theft, graffiti and other property damage. Data entered from police reports are used to coordinate criminal investigations, analyze crimes for resource deployment and provide quick and easy access to in-depth crime data for the Information Management group to study. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 21 18 ANNUAL CRIME STATISTICS Evaluating Statistics: The statistics in this report are generated through specialized searches of the department's computer system. When reading and evaluating these findings, please keep in mind this one very important factor: Our figures are based solely on reported incidents which are brought to the attention of the police department. An incident record usually starts with a call to the dispatcher. Information from the caller is entered into the CAD system, and an officer is sent to the scene. If the call warrants, the officer will write a report. A computerized record may also be generated when an officer on routine patrol sees something suspicious occurring or pulls a vehicle over for a violation or when a victim comes in to the police department to report a crime. Many crimes go unreported, even though awareness of crime has increased. Reasons vary as to why crimes and suspicious incidents are not reported, but here are some of the common reasons. 1. The victim believes that the crime was unimportant, 2. Fear of retaliation from the suspect, 3. Perception that the police will not believe the victim, 4. The victim was involved in an illegal act when the crime happened, 5. Perception that the police will not be able to catch the person(s) who committed the crime, and 6. The victim may feel that she/he was the cause of being victimized. This is mostly the case with domestic assault and sexual assault. Other factors which have an effect on the types of calls and resulting incidents of crime include: • Age of the population • Income level • Educational level • Proximity to a central city • Population density • Access to, and transportation system within, the city • Type of housing and industry • Number, type, location, and concentration of entertainment and recreational facilities Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 22 19 Classification of Crimes: Part one crimes, also called Crime Index Crimes, consist of offenses, which, because of their seriousness, frequency of occurrence, and likelihood of being reported to police, were selected to serve for evaluating the fluctuations in the volume of crime. These crimes are, in order of seriousness: Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny (Theft), Auto Theft, and Arson. Information on these crimes is kept by the FBI, National Criminal Justice Institute, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and local law enforcement agencies. This information has been kept since the 1930's. Another category of crime which is also kept by the FBI and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is Part two crime. There are 18 types of crime in this category, some of which are as follows: Simple assault, other sex offenses, forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement, property damage, gambling, prostitution, DWI, narcotics, weapons, liquor laws, possession of stolen property, family/child crime, and disorderly conduct. Juvenile Offenses Juvenile crimes are separated into two categories, 1). Status offenses -offenses which are legal to persons over a certain age, but illegal to those under that age. Such offenses include runaways, truancy, curfew, smoking, consuming alcohol, etc. 2). Criminal offenses - offenses which are illegal regardless of age. Such offenses would include shoplifting, assault, arson, criminal sexual conduct, robbery, auto theft, etc. COMPARISON OF JUVENILE STATUS OFFENSES IN 2010 AND 2009 # of Juveniles Involved Offense 2011 2010 Absenting 67 45 Tobacco 6 5 Alcohol Consumption 14 7 Curfew Violations 15 10 In 2011, the department arrested/cited approximately 380 juveniles for criminal and status offenses. The top 5 criminal offenses committed by juveniles were: • Theft/Shoplifting • Disorderly Conduct • Assault • Controlled Substance Violation • Possessing/Receiving Stolen Property Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 23 20 Calls for Service The police responded to 30,205 calls for service in 2011, compared to 28,779 in 2010. This is a 5% increase. Below is a summary of the calls for service received during 2011. Description # of Calls Description # of Calls TRAFFIC STOP 5,362 FIREWORKS 62 MEDICALS 3,100 OFP/RESTR ORDER VIOLATION 62 DIRECTED PATROL 2,684 LOST PROPERTY 56 ACTIVITY/PERSON/VEHICLE 1,281 OPEN DOOR/WINDOW 50 ALARM 1,216 MISC ORDINANCE 49 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENT 960 SNOWBIRDS 49 THEFT 840 WEAPONS VIOLATION 46 CHECK WELFARE 758 COUNTERFEIT/FORGERY 43 PARKING COMPLAINT 744 PUBLIC ASSIST 43 FOLLOW-UP 678 SUICIDE THREAT/ATTEMPT 42 MOTORIST ASST/LOCKOUT 660 ALARM-MEDICAL 40 NOISE/LOUD MUSIC 652 DEATH INVESTIGATION 39 OTHER INCIDENT 585 ALARM-PANIC 38 DISTURB/PARTY/NOISE 582 ALARM-HOLDUP/ROBBERY 37 PROP DAMAGE/VANDALISM 541 CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT 37 FIRE CALL 474 ANIMAL-CRUELTY 35 THEFT FROM AUTO 415 ANIMAL - WILDLIFE 32 EXTRA PATROL 389 TRAFFIC DETAIL 28 TRESPASS/UNWANTED PERSON 386 CHILD PROTECTION 24 ANIMAL CALL 385 CHECK PREMISE 21 DRIVING COMPLAINT 344 OBSCENITY/EXPOSER 19 ASSIST OTHER AGENCY 324 ROBBERY 19 HIT & RUN PROPERTY DAMAGE 320 CHECK RESIDENCE 18 ALARM-FIRE 313 SEARCH WARRANT 17 JUVENILE COMPLAINT 298 ANIMAL BITE 16 DWI 285 PAPER SERVICE 12 COP/QUEST/INTELLIGENCE 265 PROWLER/PEEPER 12 CIVIL ASSIST 248 FOLLOW-UP 12 FOUND PROPERTY 247 ANIMAL - DANGEROUS 11 DOMESTIC 231 TOW 11 HARASSING COMMUNICATIONS 210 BKGROUND/PRINTS/RI 9 FRAUD 206 CHECK PARK 7 SHOPLIFTER 204 ANIMAL-DEER 6 UTILITIES 201 PHONE CALL 5 911 HANGUP 195 ACCIDENT-CAR VS DEER 4 BURGLARY 195 STALKING 4 COMMUNITY POLICING 166 PRED OFFENDER REGISTRATION 3 MENTAL HEALTH-CRISIS 165 RECREATIONAL FIRE 3 DRUNKENNESS 163 STOP ARM VIOLATION 3 DRUG ACTIVITY 152 VULNERABLE ADULT 3 THEFT-NO PAY 148 COMMUNITY POLICING 3 ANIMAL AT LARGE 144 911 CELL 2 NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE 138 CRIME PREVENTION 2 ANIMAL BARK 137 HANDGUN PERMITS 2 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT 134 KIDNAPPING 2 THREATS 130 LIQUOR VIOLATION 2 VEHICLE THEFT 123 PROSTITUTION 2 MISSING PERSON 110 TRANSPORT-PRISONER 2 WARRANT ACTIVITY 110 LIQUOR/TOBACCO COMPLIANCE 1 ASSAULT 102 CURFEW 1 ROAD HAZARD 92 DISASTER 1 RUNAWAY 82 DEPT PROPERTY DAMAGE 1 FIGHT 78 GAMBLING 1 IDENTITY THEFT 71 MEDICAL LIFT ASSISTANCE 1 PANHANDLING 66 PD ACCIDENT/HIT & RUN 1 RECOVERED PROPERTY/VEHICLE 64 TRESPASSING 1 Total Calls - 2012 30,205 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 24 21 Part 1 Crimes Reported Crime 2011 2010 Difference % Homicide 1 2 -50.0% Rape 5 5 0.0% Robbery 23 28 -17.9% Aggravated Assault 34 22 54.5% Burglary - Total 229 188 21.8% Residential 160 125 28.0% Business 69 63 9.5% Larceny - Total 1115 1235 -9.7% Theft from Vehicle 366 407 -10.1% Motor Vehicle Theft 70 59 18.6% Arson 1 4 -75.0% Total Part 1 1478 1543 -4.2% Part 2 Crimes Reported Crime 2011 2010 Difference % Other Assaults 249 304 -18.1% Fraud 253 244 3.7% Embezzlement 2 4 -50.0% Forgery/Counterfeiting 27 36 -25.0% Other Sex Offenses 42 62 -32.3% Narcotics 105 70 50.0% Fleeing Police 4 8 -50.0% Gambling 1 0 +1 Family/Child Crime 15 9 66.7% Liquor Violations 21 27 -22.2% Disorderly Conduct 56 102 -45.1% Trespassing 19 16 18.8% Littering 6 9 -33.3% Possess/Receive Stolen Property 14 11 27.3% Weapons Violations 8 8 0.0% Prostitution/Obscenity 0 2 -100.0% DWI 281 192 46.4% Vandalism-All 450 426 5.6% Graffiti 146 113 29.2% OFP/Harassment Order Violations 40 53 -24.5% All Other 49 33 48.5% Total Part 2 1642 1616 1.6% CRIME COMPARISON 2011 and 2010 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 25 22 2011 CLEARANCE RATES Part 1 Crime Total Number Reported Number Unfounded Total Actual Number Cleared Percent Cleared Homicide 1 0 1 1 100.0% Rape 5 0 5 5 100.0% Robbery 23 0 23 10 43.5% Assault 34 0 34 28 82.4% Burglary 229 1 228 35 15.4% Larceny 1115 5 1110 298 26.8% Motor Vehicle Theft 70 3 67 12 17.9% Arson 1 0 1 0 0.0% Total Part 1 1478 9 1469 389 26.5% Part 2 Crime Other Assaults 249 1 248 230 92.7% Fraud 253 5 248 115 46.4% Embezzlement 2 0 2 2 100.0% Forgery/Counter. 27 0 27 8 29.6% Other Sex Offenses 42 4 38 22 57.9% Narcotics 105 0 105 103 98.1% Escaping/Fleeing 4 0 4 4 100.0% Gambling 1 0 1 1 100.0% Family/Child Crime 15 2 13 9 69.2% Liquor Violations 21 0 21 21 100.0% Disorderly Conduct 56 0 56 47 83.9% Trespassing 19 0 19 17 89.5% Littering 6 0 6 5 83.3% Stolen Property 14 1 13 11 84.6% Weapons Violation 8 0 8 7 87.5% Obscenity/Prostitution 0 0 0 0 N/A DWI 281 0 281 281 100.0% Vandalism 450 0 450 56 12.4% Graffiti 146 146 0.0% All Other 89 1 88 78 88.6% Total Part 2 1642 14 1628 1017 62.5% Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 26 23 2011 PART I CRIMES BY NEIGHBORHOOD Aggravated Vehicle Total Part 1 Neighborhood Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Res Bus From Vehicle Other Theft Arson by Neighborhood Shelard Park 0 0 0 0 12 3 29 10 2 0 56 Kilmer 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 1 0 0 15 Crestview 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Westwood Hills 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 6 Cedar Manor 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 5 Willow Park 0 0 0 4 3 0 4 27 2 0 40 Pennsylvania Park 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 5 1 0 10 Eliot 0 1 3 1 6 13 12 19 8 0 63 Blackstone 1 0 0 0 2 20 41 78 4 0 146 Cedarhurst 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 7 Eliot View 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 5 0 0 16 Cobblecrest 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 0 1 9 Minnehaha 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 6 2 0 11 Amhurst 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Aquila 0 1 5 3 8 1 12 206 3 0 239 Oak Hill 0 1 3 5 7 2 27 16 2 0 63 Texa Tonka 0 0 1 4 12 4 11 35 3 0 70 Bronx Park 0 1 0 1 13 3 22 7 1 0 48 Lenox 0 0 3 2 16 2 32 63 3 0 121 Sorenson 0 0 0 0 6 0 11 8 4 0 29 Birchwood 0 0 1 4 11 0 26 13 5 0 60 Lake Forest 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 Fern Hill 0 0 1 0 8 2 11 9 7 0 38 Triangle 0 0 0 2 5 0 10 14 6 0 37 Wolfe Park 0 0 0 0 4 4 37 83 3 0 131 Minikahda Oaks 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Minikahda Vista 0 0 2 1 3 1 8 17 2 0 34 Browndale 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 5 Brookside 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 9 Brooklawn 0 0 0 0 3 4 14 11 2 0 34 Elmwood 0 0 0 1 6 2 14 69 2 0 94 Meadowbrook 0 1 1 1 15 0 7 8 4 0 37 South Oak Hill 0 0 1 0 2 1 10 14 0 0 28 Westdale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Creeks ide 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 6 Outside City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 1 5 23 34 160 69 366 749 70 1 1478 Burglary Theft/Larceny Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 27 24 2011 PART II CRIMES BY NEIGHBORHOOD CRIMINAL FAMILY/TOTAL OTHER WEAPONS SEXUAL CHILD LIQUOR DISORDERLY OTHER PART II BY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSAULTS FORGERY FRAUD VANDALISM OFFENSES CONDUCT NARCOTICS CRIME DWI VIOLATION CONDUCT PART II NEIGHBORHOOD Shelard Park 4 0 10 13 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 2 35 Kilmer 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 13 Crestview 1 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Westwood Hills 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 Cedar Manor 4 0 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 25 North Side 8 0 2 16 1 2 4 2 1 1 8 1 46 Pennsyl. Park 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 13 Eliot 12 0 19 17 0 1 1 0 14 0 3 4 71 Blackstone 8 3 18 22 0 2 6 0 38 3 10 5 115 Cedarhurst 2 0 2 5 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 1 17 Eliot View 7 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 17 Cobblecrest 9 0 7 8 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 30 Minnehaha 2 0 3 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 13 Amhurst 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 Aquila 29 8 28 39 0 5 5 4 11 1 5 14 149 Oak Hill 20 0 10 28 2 1 6 1 9 1 1 8 87 Texa Tonka 27 2 8 25 0 6 4 3 7 1 4 13 100 Bronx Park 6 1 3 37 0 0 3 0 4 1 1 7 63 Lenox 16 1 16 49 1 3 14 0 25 3 7 16 151 Sorenson 5 0 4 12 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 4 35 Birchwood 19 1 11 14 0 1 6 0 8 0 2 7 69 Lake Forest 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 Fern Hill 2 0 9 13 0 3 2 1 12 2 0 3 47 Triangle 9 0 10 12 1 5 15 1 60 1 1 9 124 Wolfe Park 22 2 25 20 0 1 8 0 13 1 3 8 103 Minikahda Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Minikahda Vista 3 1 10 10 0 0 1 0 6 1 1 2 35 Browndale 4 0 1 6 0 0 3 0 4 1 1 1 21 Brookside 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 9 Brooklawn 6 0 12 8 0 3 4 0 2 1 1 2 39 Elmwood 6 2 8 24 1 0 0 1 17 0 0 4 63 Meadowbrook 7 0 8 16 0 2 3 0 1 0 3 9 49 South Oak Hill 1 5 2 15 0 1 6 0 12 0 0 5 47 Westdale 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 Creekside 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Outside City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 1 0 0 11 TOTALS 249 27 253 450 8 42 105 15 281 21 56 135 1642 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 28 25 TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE 2002 -2011 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 CALLS 31,753 30,608 33,404 32,311 35,959 33,775 34,641 32,451 28,779 30,205 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average: 32,389 Source: Department Records Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 29 26 CALLS BY TIME OF DAY 2011 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 CALLS 1665 1533 1190 751 316 373 478 694 987 1090 1665 1291 1436 1470 1502 1481 1489 1710 1522 1526 1531 1396 1792 1786 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Average: 1259 Source: Department Records Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 30 27 CALLS BY DAY OF WEEK 2011 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 CALLS 3749 4149 4331 4259 4512 4767 4438 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY Average: 4315 Source: Department Records Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 31 28 CALLS BY MONTH OF YEAR 2011 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 CALLS 2371 2195 2613 2556 2602 2724 2733 2593 2615 2538 2412 2253 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Average: 2,517 Source: Department Records Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 32 29 PART I CRIME * 2002 -2011 1478 154315371520 1613 1441 1641 1581 1674 1419 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PART I CRIME Source: Department Records PART I CRIME INCLUDES HOMICIDE, RAPE, ROBBERY, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, BURGLARY, THEFT, MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT AND ARSON* 10-year Average: 1,545 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 33 30 HOMICIDE 2002 -2011 0 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Homicide Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 1 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 34 31 RAPE 2002 -2011 9 8 12 18 8 10 11 18 5 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Rape Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 10 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 35 32 ROBBERY 2002 -2011 26 36 24 38 34 40 36 31 28 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Robbery Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 32 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 36 33 ASSAULT 2002 -2011 20 44 27 40 44 31 20 22 22 34 285 274 296 306 256 288 302 318 304 249 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Aggravated Assault Other Assaults Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 30 10-year Average: 288 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 37 34 BURGLARY 2002 -2011 167 206 247 305 196 273 249 240 188 229 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL BURGLARIES Source: Department Records 10-Year Average: 230 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 38 35 RESIDENTIAL VS. BUSINESS BURGLARY 2002 -2011 68 87 107 122 125 155 168 161 125 160 99 119 140 183 71 118 81 79 63 69 0 50 100 150 200 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS Source: Department Records Business 10-year Average: 102 Residential 10-year Average: 128 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 39 36 THEFT 2002 -2011 1089 1244 1162 1122 1064 1159 1127 1168 1235 1115 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 2002200320042005200620072008200920102011THEFTS Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 1,148 2011 THEFT BY TYPEBicycle 5%Theft from Vehicle 38% Shoplifting 22% All Other 40% Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 40 37 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 2002 -2011 94 115 85 108 91 92 72 52 59 70 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Motor Vehicle Theft Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 84 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 41 38 ARSON 2002 -2011 14 21 21 8 4 7 13 6 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Arson Source: Department Records 10-Year Average: 9 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 42 39 PART II CRIMES * 2002 -2011 2159 2129 2130 2037 2137 2430 2029 1782 1616 1642 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PART II CRIME Source: Department Records INCLUDES DWI, NARCOTICS, VANDALISM, FORGERY/FRAUD, CSC, DISORDERLY CONDUCT, OTHER ASSAULT, OBSCENITY, STOLEN PROPERTY, FLEEING POLICE, GAMBLING, LIQUOR VIOLATIONS, WEAPONS OFFENSES * 10 year Average: 2,009 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 43 40 FORGERY 2002 -2011 106 87 89 109 83 77 52 43 36 27 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Forgery Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 71 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 44 41 FRAUD 2002 –2011 145 162 142 147 167 184 176 167 197 220 35 49 82 82 34 52 53 47 33 53 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Other Fraud Identity Theft Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 219 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 45 42 VANDALISM 2002 -2011 427 481 547 466 635 1010 630 444 426 450 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Vandalism Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 552 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 46 43 DWI 2002 -2011 369 302 326 416 460 288 312 255 192 281 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2002200320042005200620072008200920102011DWI Thursday 12% Tuesday 9% Monday 8% Sunday 19% Wednesday 13% Saturday 25% Friday 14% Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 320 2011 % By Day of Week Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 47 44 NARCOTICS 2002 -2011 87 75 67 52 75 77 67 78 70 105 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Narcotics Crimes Source: Department Records 10-year Average: 75 Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Police Department Annual Report Page 48 Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Brewer Taprooms RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on the status of the Liquor License and Zoning Ordinance Amendments required to permit Brewer Taprooms, and to summarize the next step which is to amend the City Code to incorporate the proposed amendments. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to make changes to the City Code to allow brewer taprooms? BACKGROUND: MN Statutes were recently amended to allow municipalities to issue a taproom license to a state licensed brewer. The State Statute allows cities to issue brewer taproom licenses that allow the on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one brewery location owned by the brewer. The City has been approached by Steel Toe Brewing, located at 4848 35th Street in the Beltline Industrial Park, about allowing a Brewer Taproom at its facility (letter attached). To allow a licensed brewer taproom in St. Louis Park, the city would have to amend its liquor and zoning ordinance. The City Council discussed the taproom option at its May 21, 2012 study session, and directed staff to prepare amendments to the Liquor License and Zoning Ordinances to allow taprooms. As directed, staff prepared the attached ordinances for your review. The draft ordinances have been reviewed by the City Attorney, and determined to be consistent with State Law and existing City Ordinances. A summary of the ordinances are as follows: Liquor License Ordinance Amendment: 1. A taproom license will be issued only to brewers that produce less than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. State Statute allows taprooms at brewers that produce up to 250,000 barrels annually, however State Statutes only allow growler sales at breweries that produce up to 3,500 barrels annually. Staff chose to be consistent with the treatment of growler sales and taprooms and therefore set a 3,500 annual barrel production limit for both items. As a matter of comparison, Steel Toe currently produces 500 barrels annually. The owner of Steel Toe does not anticipate the 3,500 barrel limit becoming a hindrance in the future. 2. The malt liquor sold for consumption on site must be produced by the brewer on the licensed premises. This is a requirement of state law. 3. A brewer may have only one taproom license. This is a requirement of State Law. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: Brewer Taprooms 4. Hours of operation for on-sale of malt liquor at a brewer taproom shall be within the following hours: Monday - Thursday: 3 pm to 8 pm Friday: 3 pm to 10 pm Saturday: 11 am to 10 pm Sunday: 11 am to 8 pm Federally Recognized Holidays: 11 am to 10 pm 5. A restaurant is not allowed at a brewery with a taproom license. The brewer would, however, be allowed to sell simple pre-packaged snacks (chips, peanuts, popcorn, etc.) for consumption on-site. This requirement is added to provide a distinction between a liquor license issued to restaurants and a taproom license. The intent of the taproom is to provide an opportunity for customers to sample and enjoy the malt beverage produced by the brewery. It is not intended to provide a dining experience. If zoning allows restaurants in the location of the brewery, then the brewer can choose to abandon the taproom license and apply for an intoxicating liquor license which is typically issued to restaurants, and the brewer would then have to comply with all requirements of that license, including food/liquor sale ratios. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 1. Staff is proposing to create the following land use definitions that would be amended into the zoning ordinance: Taproom means a facility on or adjacent to premises owned by a brewer where the on-sale and consumption of malt liquor produced only by the brewer is permitted. Brewery means a facility that manufactures alcoholic and/or nonalcoholic malt liquor. This definition does not include breweries operated in conjunction with a restaurant as an accessory use. 2. Breweries are proposed to be allowed in the Business Park, Industrial Park and General Industrial Zoning Districts as permitted uses. Currently, we consider breweries under the “manufacturing/processing” land use which is a permitted land use (Conditional Use Permit not required) in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Zoning Districts. Breweries are proposed to be permitted with the following condition: Business Park and Industrial Park - the brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels per year. This requirement will maintain consistency with the growler and taproom requirements. General Industrial Park – no additional conditions. A brewery in this district can produce any amount of beverage; however, it will not be allowed to sell growlers once it exceeds 3,500 barrels per year (per state law). Staff also recommends that a taproom not be allowed in the General Industrial District even if it produces less than 3,500 barrels per year. The General Industrial District is intended to manufacture and warehouse items on a large scale. Therefore, it is not conducive to general public traffic looking for refreshment or entertainment activities. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Subject: Brewer Taprooms 3. Taprooms are proposed to be located in the Business Park and Industrial Park Zoning Districts with the following condition: Up to 25% of the gross floor area of the Brewery in a Business Park District, and up to15% in the Industrial Park Zoning District may be used for any combination of retail and a taproom. The 25% and 15% floor area limitations are already established in the Business Park and Industrial Park Zoning District for retail and service uses. Staff is proposing to include the taproom in the area limitation so that the total of all taproom, retail and other accessory uses does not exceed the 25% or 15% limitation. Next Steps: 1. July 18, 2012 - A public hearing at the Planning Commission for the zoning ordinance amendments. 2. August 6, 2012 – First reading of the Liquor License and Zoning Ordinances. 3. August 20, 2012 – Second reading of the Liquor License and Zoning Ordinances. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: N/A VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all city initiatives. Attachments: Draft Liquor License Amendment Draft Zoning Amendment MN State Statute 340A.301 Sec. 4 Subd.6b Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Administrator Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager ORDINANCE NO. ___-12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING BREWER TAPROOM LICENSING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 3, Article II, Division 1, Section 3-32 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following provisions: Sec. 3-32. Definitions. Brewer means a person who manufactures malt liquor for sale. SECTION 2. Chapter 3, Article II, Division 2, Section 3-57 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following provisions: Sec. 3-57. Classifications. (14) Brewer taproom license. A brewer who has a license from the Commissioner of Public Safety to brew up to 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year may be issued a license by the City for on-sale of malt liquor subject to the following conditions: a. The malt liquor sold on sale for consumption must be produced by the brewer on the licensed premises. b. No other beverages containing alcohol may be sold or consumed on the licensed premises b. A brewer may only have one taproom license. c. Hours of operation for on-sale of malt liquor at a brewer taproom shall be within the following hours: Monday - Thursday 3:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Friday 3:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Saturday 11:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. Federally Recognized Holidays 11:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. d. A restaurant is not allowed at a brewery with a taproom license. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 4 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its publication. ENACTED this day of , 2012, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council , 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Public Hearing/First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. ____-12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4 DEFINITIONS, 36-233 BP BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT, 36-243 I-P INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT, AND 36-244 I-G GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 12-18-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-233, 36-243, and 36-244 are hereby amended by adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. *** Sec. 36-4. Definitions. *** Brewery means a facility that manufactures alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor. This definition does not include breweries operated in conjunction with a restaurant as an accessory use. *** Taproom means a facility on or adjacent to premises owned by a brewer where the on-sale and consumption of malt liquor produced only by the brewer is permitted. *** Sec. 36-233. BP business park district. *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in any BP district may be used for one or more of the following uses if it has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 1.0 and complies with the performance standards as stated in Section 36-232 and the conditions stated below: *** Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 6 1. Brewery. The conditions are as follows: a. The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. b. Up to 25% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of retail and a taproom. *** *** Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district. *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in an I-P district may be used for one or more of the following uses if its use complies with the conditions stated in section 36-242 and those specified for the use permitted in this subsection: *** (11) Brewery. The conditions are as follows: a. The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. b. Up to 15% of the gross floor area of the Brewery may be used for any combination of retail and a taproom. *** Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district. *** (b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an I-G district. *** (15) Brewery. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-18-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing July 18, 2012 First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 7 Adopted by the City Council Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 8 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 340A.301 340A.301 MANUFACTURERS AND WHOLESALERS LICENSES. Subdivision 1.Licenses required.No person may directly or indirectly manufacture or sell at wholesale intoxicating liquor, or 3.2 percent malt liquor without obtaining an appropriate license from the commissioner, except where otherwise provided in this chapter. A manufacturer's license includes the right to import. A licensed brewer may sell the brewer's products at wholesale only if the brewer has been issued a wholesaler's license. The commissioner shall issue a wholesaler's license to a brewer only if (1) the commissioner determines that the brewer was selling the brewer's own products at wholesale in Minnesota on January 1, 1991, or (2) the brewer has acquired a wholesaler's business or assets under subdivision 7a, paragraph (c) or (d). A licensed wholesaler of intoxicating malt liquor may sell 3.2 percent malt liquor at wholesale without an additional license. Subd. 2.Persons eligible.Licenses under this section may be issued only to a person who: (1) is of good moral character and repute; (2) is 21 years of age or older; (3) has not had a license issued under this chapter revoked within five years of the date of license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; and (4) has not been convicted within five years of the date of license application of a felony, or of a willful violation of a federal or state law, or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. The Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division may require that fingerprints be taken and may forward the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of a criminal history check. Subd. 3.Application.An application for a license under this section must be made to the commissioner on a form the commissioner prescribes and must be accompanied by the fee specified in subdivision 6. If an application is denied, $100 of the amount of any fee exceeding that amount shall be retained by the commissioner to cover costs of investigation. Subd. 4.Bond.The commissioner may not issue a license under this section to a person who has not filed a bond with corporate surety, or cash, or United States government bonds payable to the state. The proof of financial responsibility must be approved by the commissioner before the license is issued. The bond must be conditioned on the licensee obeying all laws governing the business and paying when due all taxes, fees, penalties and other charges, and must provide that it is forfeited to the state on a violation of law. This subdivision does not apply to a Minnesota farm winery, licensed under section 340A.315, that is in existence as of January 1, 2010. Bonds must be in the following amounts: Manufacturers and wholesalers of intoxicating liquor except as provided in this subdivision $ 10,000 Manufacturers and wholesalers of wine up to 25 percent alcohol by weight $ 5,000 Manufacturers and wholesalers of beer of more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight $ 1,000 Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 9 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 340A.301 Manufacturers and wholesalers of fewer than 20,000 proof gallons $ 2,000 Manufacturers and wholesalers of 20,000 to 40,000 proof gallons $ 3,000 Subd. 5.Period of license.Licenses issued under this section are valid for one year except that to coordinate expiration dates initial licenses may be issued for a shorter period. Subd. 6.Fees.The annual fees for licenses under this section are as follows: (a)Manufacturers (except as provided in clauses (b) and (c))$ 30,000 Duplicates $ 3,000 (b) Manufacturers of wines of not more than 25 percent alcohol by volume $ 500 (c) Brewers who manufacture more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year $ 4,000 (d) Brewers who also hold one or more retail on-sale licenses and who manufacture fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off-sale from those licensed premises as permitted in subdivision 7. A brewer licensed under this clause must obtain a separate license for each licensed premises where the brewer brews malt liquor. A brewer licensed under this clause may not be licensed as an importer under this chapter $ 500 (e) Wholesalers (except as provided in clauses (f), (g), and (h))$ 15,000 Duplicates $ 3,000 (f) Wholesalers of wines of not more than 25 percent alcohol by volume $ 3,750 (g)Wholesalers of intoxicating malt liquor $ 1,000 Duplicates $ 25 (h)Wholesalers of 3.2 percent malt liquor $ 10 (i) Brewers who manufacture fewer than 2,000 barrels of malt liquor in a year $ 150 (j) Brewers who manufacture 2,000 to 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year $ 500 If a business licensed under this section is destroyed, or damaged to the extent that it cannot be carried on, or if it ceases because of the death or illness of the licensee, the commissioner may refund the license fee for the balance of the license period to the licensee or to the licensee's estate. Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 10 3 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 340A.301 Subd. 6a.Permits and fees.Any person engaged in the purchase, sale, or use for any purpose other than personal consumption of intoxicating alcoholic beverages or ethyl alcohol shall obtain the appropriate regulatory permit and identification card from the commissioner as provided in this subdivision. The fee for each permit, other than one issued to a state or federal agency, is $35 and must be submitted together with the appropriate application form provided by the commissioner. Identification cards and permits must be issued for a period coinciding with that of the appropriate state or municipal license and are not transferable. In instances where there is no annual license period, cards and permits expire one year after the date of issuance. The authority to engage in the purchase, sale, or use granted by the card or permit may be revoked by the commissioner upon evidence of a violation by the holder of such a card or permit of any of the provisions of chapter 340A or any rule of the commissioner made pursuant to law. Subd. 6b.Brewer taproom license.(a) A municipality may issue the holder of a brewer's license under subdivision 6, clause (c), (i), or (j), a brewer taproom license. A brewer taproom license authorizes on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one brewery location owned by the brewer. Nothing in this subdivision precludes the holder of a brewer taproom license from also holding a license to operate a restaurant at the brewery. Section 340A.409 shall apply to a license issued under this subdivision. All provisions of this chapter that apply to a retail liquor license shall apply to a license issued under this subdivision unless the provision is explicitly inconsistent with this subdivision. (b) A brewer may only have one taproom license under this subdivision, and may not have an ownership interest in a brewery licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d). (c) A municipality may not issue a brewer taproom license to a brewer if the brewer seeking the license, or any person having an economic interest in the brewer seeking the license or exercising control over the brewer seeking the license, is a brewer that brews more than 250,000 barrels of malt liquor annually or a winery that produces more than 250,000 gallons of wine annually. (d) The municipality shall impose a licensing fee on a brewer holding a brewer taproom license under this subdivision, subject to limitations applicable to license fees under section 340A.408, subdivision 2, paragraph (a). (e) A municipality shall, within ten days of the issuance of a license under this subdivision, inform the commissioner of the licensee's name and address and trade name, and the effective date and expiration date of the license. The municipality shall also inform the commissioner of a license transfer, cancellation, suspension, or revocation during the license period. Subd. 6c.Microdistillery fee.The commissioner shall establish a fee for licensing microdistilleries that adequately covers the cost of issuing the license and other inspection requirements. The fees shall be deposited in an account in the special revenue fund and are appropriated to the commissioner for the purposes of this subdivision. Subd. 7.Interest in other business.(a) Except as provided in this subdivision, a holder of a license as a manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler may not have any ownership, in whole or in part, in a business holding a retail intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license. The commissioner may not issue a license under this section to a manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler if a retailer of intoxicating liquor has a direct or indirect interest in the manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler. A manufacturer or wholesaler of intoxicating liquor may use or have property rented for retail intoxicating liquor sales only if the manufacturer or wholesaler has Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 11 4 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 340A.301 owned the property continuously since November 1, 1933. A retailer of intoxicating liquor may not use or have property rented for the manufacture or wholesaling of intoxicating liquor. (b) A brewer licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d), may be issued an on-sale intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license by a municipality for a restaurant operated in the place of manufacture. Notwithstanding section 340A.405, a brewer who holds an on-sale license issued pursuant to this paragraph or a brewer who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year may, with the approval of the commissioner, be issued a license by a municipality for off-sale of malt liquor produced and packaged on the licensed premises. Off-sale of malt liquor shall be limited to the legal hours for off-sale at exclusive liquor stores in the jurisdiction in which the brewer is located, and the malt liquor sold off-sale must be removed from the premises before the applicable off-sale closing time at exclusive liquor stores. The malt liquor shall be packaged in 64-ounce containers commonly known as "growlers" or in 750 milliliter bottles. The containers or bottles shall bear a twist-type closure, cork, stopper, or plug. At the time of the sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall be applied to the container or bottle and extend over the top of the twist-type closure, cork, stopper, or plug forming a seal that must be broken upon opening of the container or bottle. The adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall bear the name and address of the brewer. The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer selling the malt liquor, and shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1100. A brewer's total retail sales at on- or off-sale under this paragraph may not exceed 3,500 barrels per year, provided that off-sales may not total more than 500 barrels. A brewer licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d), may hold or have an interest in other retail on-sale licenses, but may not have an ownership interest in whole or in part, or be an officer, director, agent, or employee of, any other manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler, or be an affiliate thereof whether the affiliation is corporate or by management, direction, or control. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a brewer licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d), may be an affiliate or subsidiary company of a brewer licensed in Minnesota or elsewhere if that brewer's only manufacture of malt liquor is: (i) manufacture licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d); (ii) manufacture in another state for consumption exclusively in a restaurant located in the place of manufacture; or (iii) manufacture in another state for consumption primarily in a restaurant located in or immediately adjacent to the place of manufacture if the brewer was licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d), on January 1, 1995. (c) Except as provided in subdivision 7a, no brewer as defined in subdivision 7a or importer may have any interest, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, in the license, business, assets, or corporate stock of a licensed malt liquor wholesaler. Subd. 7a.Permitted interests in wholesale business.(a) A brewer may financially assist a wholesaler of malt liquor through participation in a limited partnership in which the brewer is the limited partner and the wholesaler is the general partner. A limited partnership authorized in this paragraph may not exist for more than ten years from the date of its creation, and may not, directly or indirectly, be recreated, renewed, or extended beyond that date. (b) A brewer may financially assist a malt liquor wholesaler and collateralize the financing by taking a security interest in the inventory and assets, other than the corporate stock, of the Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 12 5 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 340A.301 wholesaler. A financial agreement authorized by this paragraph may not be in effect for more than ten years from the date of its creation and may not be directly or indirectly extended or renewed. (c) A brewer who, after creation of a financial agreement authorized by paragraph (b), or after creation of a limited partnership authorized in paragraph (a), acquires legal or equitable title to the wholesaler's business which was the subject of the agreement or limited partnership, or to the business assets, must divest the business or its assets within two years of the date of acquiring them. A malt liquor wholesaler whose business or assets are acquired by a brewer as described in this paragraph may not enter into another such financial agreement, or participate in another such limited partnership, for 20 years from the date of the acquisition of the business or assets. (d) A brewer may have an interest in the business, assets, or corporate stock of a malt liquor wholesaler as a result of (1) a judgment against the wholesaler arising out of a default by the wholesaler or (2) acquisition of title to the business, assets, or corporate stock as a result of a written request of the wholesaler. A brewer may maintain ownership of or an interest in the business, assets, or corporate stock under this paragraph for not more than two years and only for the purpose of facilitating an orderly transfer of the business to an owner not affiliated with the brewer. (e) A brewer may continue to maintain an ownership interest in a malt liquor wholesaler if it owned the interest on January 1, 1991. (f) A brewer that was legally selling the brewer's own products at wholesale in Minnesota on January 1, 1991, may continue to sell those products at wholesale in the area where it was selling those products on that date. (g) A brewer that manufactures malt liquor in Minnesota may, if the brewer does not manufacture in Minnesota in any year more than 25,000 barrels of malt liquor or its metric equivalent, own or have an interest in a malt liquor wholesaler that sells only the brewer's products. (h) When the commissioner issues a license to a malt liquor wholesaler described in paragraph (a) or (b), the commissioner may issue the license only to the entity which is actually operating the wholesale business and may not issue the license to a brewer that is a limited partner under paragraph (a) or providing financial assistance under paragraph (b) unless the brewer has acquired a wholesaler's business or assets under paragraph (c) or (d). (i) For purposes of this subdivision and subdivision 7, clause (c), "brewer" means: (1) a holder of a license to manufacture malt liquor; (2) an officer, director, agent, or employee of such a license holder; and (3) an affiliate of such a license holder, regardless of whether the affiliation is corporate or by management, direction, or control. Subd. 8.Sales without license.A licensed brewer may without an additional license sell malt liquor to employees or retired former employees, in amounts of not more than 768 fluid ounces in a week for off-premise consumption only. A collector of commemorative bottles, those terms are as defined in section 297G.01, subdivisions 4 and 5, may sell them to another collector without a license. It is also lawful for a collector of beer cans to sell unopened cans of a brand which has not been sold commercially for at least two years to another collector without obtaining a license. The amount sold to any one collector in any one month shall not exceed 768 fluid ounces. A licensed manufacturer of wine containing not more than 25 percent alcohol by Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 13 6 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 340A.301 volume nor less than 51 percent wine made from Minnesota-grown agricultural products may sell at on-sale or off-sale wine made on the licensed premises without a further license. Subd. 9.Unlicensed manufacture.Nothing in this chapter requires a license for the natural fermentation of fruit juices or brewing of beer in the home for family use. Subd. 10. [Repealed, 1995 c 198 s 17] History:1985 c 305 art 5 s 1; 1985 c 308 s 1; 1Sp1985 c 16 art 2 s 3 subd 1; 1986 c 330 s 4; 1987 c 152 art 1 s 1; 1987 c 249 s 1,2; 1990 c 554 s 4-6; 1991 c 249 s 1,31; 1992 c 513 art 3 s 53; 1993 c 350 s 7; 1994 c 611 s 7-9; 1995 c 198 s 4,5; 1996 c 418 s 1; 1997 c 179 art 2 s 2; 2002 c 321 s 5; 2003 c 126 s 2,3; 1Sp2003 c 2 art 4 s 23; 2005 c 25 s 1,2; 2005 c 131 s 1,2; 2005 c 136 art 8 s 12; 2006 c 210 s 3; 2007 c 89 s 3; 2009 c 120 s 2; 2011 c 55 s 3-5 Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 8) Subject: Brewer Taprooms Page 14 Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 9 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: May 2012 Monthly Financial Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information each month of the overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use of tax levy dollars. Actual expenditures should generally run about 42% of the annual budget in May. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 38.6% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 39.9%. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.). Most of the General Fund and Park and Recreation Departments are running at or below budget through May. Comments on a few revenue and expenditure variances are noted below. General Fund Revenues: • License and permit revenues in the General Fund are running well ahead of budget through May at 75%. As in prior years, this is in part due to the fact that all of the 2012 liquor and business license revenues have been recorded, with most of the payments coming in late 2011 and deferred to 2012 to accurately reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. Permit revenues are also higher than budget through May at 63%. Permit activity through mid-June indicates that this trend will continue. Expenditures: • The Community Outreach budget is at 71% because the full 2012 payment for Mediation Services was made early in the year. This expenditure is a substantial portion of the Community Outreach General Fund budget. Parks and Recreation Expenditures: • The Organized Recreation Division is at 49% of budget because the full annual Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,400 has been paid to the Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Subject: May 2012 Monthly Financial Report School District. The timing of this large expenditure is consistent with prior years and is only a temporary variance. • Expenditures in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are exceeding budget through May at 45%. The variance is mainly due to parts and motor fuel, both of which are difficult areas to budget. Staff will continue to monitor these expenditures closely as the year progresses. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget Actual Budget May YTD Remaining to Actual % General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ -$ 15,998,292$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits 2,801,255 2,368,799 1,770,777 598,022 74.75% Fines & Forfeits 260,805 328,150 115,212 212,938 35.11% Intergovernmental 1,229,595 1,163,677 278,334 885,343 23.92% Charges for Services 1,041,986 1,270,354 232,271 1,038,083 18.28% Miscellaneous Revenue 128,654 111,650 44,096 67,554 39.49% Transfers In 2,550,876 2,023,003 833,751 1,189,252 41.21% Investment Earnings - 125,000 - 125,000 0.00% Other Income 22,686 3,450 1,392 2,058 40.35% Total General Fund Revenues 23,407,933$ 23,392,375$ 3,275,833$ 20,116,542$ 14.00% Park & Recreation Revenues: General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ -$ 4,171,506$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits 110 6,600 110 6,490 1.67% Intergovernmental 149,875 68,902 8,026 60,876 11.65% Charges for Services 1,097,259 1,070,750 374,805 695,945 35.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 891,796 967,900 361,639 606,261 37.36% Other Income 6,708 42,150 1,022 41,128 2.42% Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,146,308$ 6,327,808$ 745,602$ 5,582,206$ 11.78% Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation As of May 31, 2012 Study Sessionl Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 9) Subject: May 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 3 2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget Actual Budget May YTD Remaining to Actual % General Government: Administration 840,217$ 1,012,554$ 312,747$ 699,807$ 30.89% Accounting 604,926 641,691 250,498 391,193 39.04% Assessing 506,076 517,840 217,111 300,729 41.93% Human Resources 628,995 667,612 276,252 391,360 41.38% Community Development 1,082,311 1,076,376 441,151 635,225 40.98% Facilities Maintenance 955,880 1,083,128 345,855 737,273 31.93% Information Resources 1,423,244 1,507,579 550,779 956,800 36.53% Communications & Marketing 256,537 265,426 92,761 172,665 34.95% Community Outreach 84,300 8,185 5,783 2,402 70.65% Total General Government 6,382,485$ 6,780,391$ 2,492,936$ 4,287,455$ 36.77% Public Safety: Police 6,943,324$ 7,273,723$ 3,013,982$ 4,259,741$ 41.44% Fire Protection 3,061,860 3,346,931 1,308,726 2,038,205 39.10% Inspectional Services 1,818,075 1,889,340 772,175 1,117,165 40.87% Total Public Safety 11,823,260$ 12,509,994$ 5,094,883$ 7,415,111$ 40.73% Public Works: Public Works Administration 803,310$ 389,783$ 144,116$ 245,667$ 36.97% Public Works Engineering 816,204 927,337 353,449 573,888 38.11% Public Works Operations 2,462,641 2,604,870 931,313 1,673,557 35.75% Total Public Works 4,082,156$ 3,921,990$ 1,428,878$ 2,493,112$ 36.43% Non-Departmental: General 76,397$ -$ 1,434$ (1,434)$ 0.00% Transfers Out - - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00% Total Non-Departmental 76,397$ 180,000$ 1,434$ 178,566$ 0.80% Total General Fund Expenditures 22,364,297$ 23,392,375$ 9,018,131$ 14,374,244$ 38.55% Park & Recreation: Organized Recreation 1,263,320$ 1,305,747$ 635,244$ 670,503$ 48.65% Recreation Center 1,424,052 1,466,246 457,947 1,008,299 31.23% Park Maintenance 1,472,838 1,461,645 577,474 884,171 39.51% Westwood 488,550 515,456 201,383 314,073 39.07% Environment 398,063 390,009 121,115 268,894 31.05% Vehicle Maintenance 1,268,550 1,188,705 532,314 656,391 44.78% Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,315,374$ 6,327,808$ 2,525,476$ 3,802,332$ 39.91% Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation As of May 31, 2012 Study Sessionl Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 9) Subject: May 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 Meeting Date: June 25, 2012 Agenda Item #: 10 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Elected Official Use of City Fitness Facility RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform Council that a policy has been approved regarding use of the fitness facility at Fire Station 1 for benefit earning staff, paid-on-call firefighters, and police cadets. Council has requested that use by elected officials (Mayor and Councilmembers during their terms) be added to the policy. If Council has no questions or concerns, a consent item with Resolution will be added to the next regular meeting for formal approval. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve use of City fitness facility and equipment by Mayor and Councilmembers? BACKGROUND: The newly constructed Fire Station 1 has a fitness facility. The equipment in the fitness area was originally obtained with a grant. In the building of the new station, a small fitness/wellness area was designed to be used by staff to encourage health, fitness and wellness. The City Manager has approved a written policy which makes this equipment and facility available to specific employees that includes benefit earning staff, paid-on-call firefighters, and police cadets in an effort to promote physical fitness and wellness. Limits were placed on use of this facility and equipment due to training requirements, safety concerns, facility access/security, liability, space and limited amount of equipment. At a recent study session, several Councilmembers requested that elected officials be added to those who are eligible to use the facility and equipment. If there are no questions or concerns, a consent item will be added to the next regular meeting to allow formal approval by Council. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Draft Resolution and Policy (Appendix A) Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: Elected Official Use of City Fitness Facility DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, ALLOWING MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER USE OF CITY FITNESS FACILITY WHEREAS, a fitness facility has been included at the newly constructed Fire Station 1; and WHEREAS, the City encourages and promotes wellness and physical fitness; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has approved a policy that allows use of the facility by benefit earning staff, paid-on-call firefighters, and police cadets; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this Resolution and public record, approves use of the City fitness facility by the Mayor and Councilmembers during their terms is approved as part of City policy (attached as Appendix A). Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 16, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Subject: Elected Official Use of City Fitness Facility APPENDIX A City Fitness Facility Use Policy – Fire Station 1 Purpose: The City has provided exercise equipment for employee use in Fire Station 1. The use of this equipment is a privilege that can be revoked at any time for a violation of this policy. The facility can be closed and all rights of use revoked at any time and for any reason by the City Manager. The facility and equipment therein is being made available for use by employees while they are off-duty at their own risk to assist personal pursuits of wellness and physical fitness. Who: Open to all regular benefit earning full- and part-time employees and paid-on-call firefighters, as determined by the City Manager, and Mayor and Councilmembers in accordance with Resolution 12-xx. 1. Benefit-earning staff, paid-on-call firefighters, police cadets and Mayor and Council (Resolution 12-xx) will become eligible for use of the facility and equipment after a waiver of liability (attached) is signed and placed on file with Human Resources. Key fob access will be authorized for eligible individuals with signed waivers on file. 2. The facility is available for use by authorized users 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. The City’s Fire Chief or designee has authority to administer the facility, oversee its use, enforce rules, and resolve disputes over use. 3. No authorized user may allow guests into the facility. Access is strictly limited to persons whose use is authorized by Human Resources. 4. No user may monopolize a particular piece of equipment for an unreasonable length of time or reserve equipment for future use. 5. All disputes over the use of the facility or equipment must be promptly directed to the Fire Chief. 6. All users must report any observed equipment maintenance or malfunction problems promptly to the Fire Chief or designee. 7. When on the premises of the facility or while using equipment, all users must abide by the policies contained in the City’s Personnel Manual. 8. The use of personal audio devices is allowed only with headphones so as not to be audible to other users. Any televisions must be kept to a reasonable volume. 9. Users must clean equipment promptly after use with cleaner provided. 10. Users must at all times, while in the workout area of the facility, wear proper attire, including athletic shoes and shirt. No clothing with offensive language or pictures will be allowed in the workout facility. 11. Additional exercise equipment is located at Fire Station 2. The Fire Chief has full and complete authority in determining rules and conditions of use for that facility for members of the Fire Department. Policy Approved By: ________________________________________ _______________ Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Date Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 4 Subject: Elected Official Use of City Fitness Facility CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WORKOUT FACILITY WAIVER OF LIABILITY I hereby seek authorization from the City of St. Louis Park to use the Workout Facility located in St. Louis Park Fire Station 1. As a condition of my use of this facility and all of the equipment located therein, I hereby enter into the following Agreement with the City of St. Louis Park. 1. I agree for myself, my heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives and assigns that in consideration of being allowed use of the Workout Facility to hereby release, hold harmless and discharge the City of St. Louis Park, its officers, officials, agents and employees (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “City of St. Louis Park”) of and from all claims, demands, causes of action and legal liability, whether the same be known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, with respect to any and all injury, disability, death or loss or damage to person or property sustained by me in connection with or arising out of my use of the Workout Facility or the equipment, machines, devices located therein due to the City of St. Louis Park’s actual or implied negligence; except that which is the result of gross negligence or wanton misconduct. 2. I agree that my use of the Workout Facility is completely voluntary for my own personal benefit and that the City of St. Louis Park has not ordered or required my use of this facility and that my use or failure to use this facility will have no impact on my relationship or employment with the City of St. Louis Park. 3. I agree and understand that the City of St. Louis Park will not provide any supervision over the equipment located within the Workout Facility or the activities conducted therein. 4. I agree that at all times while using the Workout Facility or adjoining showers and locker rooms that I will be considered for all intents and purposes to be on my own personal time and accordingly, in the case of injury, that I shall have no compensable Worker’s Compensation claim. 5. I agree and understand that the City of St. Louis Park makes no implied or express representations or warranties as to the condition of the equipment, machines, devices located within the Workout Facility or the fitness of equipment, machines, devices for use as exercise equipment and that I knowingly and voluntarily assume all risks of personal injury or death or property damage or loss in connection with or arising out of my use of this facility and the equipment located therein. 6. I hereby represent to the City of St. Louis Park that I have received orientation or instructions on the proper use of the equipment, machines, and devices in a manner that does not present a danger to myself or other persons. 7. I hereby represent that I have read the City’s Exercise Equipment Use Policy and agree to abide by all rules, regulations and orders applicable to my use of the facility and the equipment, machines and devices located therein. I agree and understand that a violation of these rules, regulations or orders may result in the revocation of my privilege to use this facility. Study Session Meeting of June 25, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 5 Subject: Elected Official Use of City Fitness Facility 8. I agree to report all equipment that I believe is malfunctioning or in need of repair to the Fire Chief or designee. 9. I hereby represent that I am in good physical condition and that my use of the Workout Facility and the equipment located therein will not pose a danger to my health or safety. I acknowledge that the City of St. Louis Park recommends and encourages all persons embarking upon fitness or exercise program to first consult with their physician and abide by any limitations set by their physician. 10. I agree and understand that the City of St. Louis Park Fire Chief has the authority to close this Facility and revoke all use privileges at any time and for any reason. 11. I agree that except in the event of the City of St. Louis Park’ gross negligence or wanton misconduct, that I shall not bring any claims, demands, legal actions or causes of action against the City of St. Louis Park or any person who provided equipment located within the Workout Facility for any economic or non-economic losses due to bodily injury, death, property damage sustained by me in relation to the Workout Facility, the equipment located therein, or the adjacent showers and locker rooms, it being my express intent and purposed to bind myself, my heirs, executors, administrator and assigns hereby. 12. The City of St. Louis Park is not waiving any immunities to which it may be entitled under state law. I have read this release of liability, waiver and assumption of risk agreement, fully understand its terms, understand that I have given up substantial rights by signing it, and sign it freely and voluntarily without any inducement. Signed: ________________________________ Print Name:_____________________________ Dated:_________________________________ **FORWARD THIS FORM TO HUMAN RESOURCES WHEN SIGNED** 1. Human Resources will notify Fire Dept of your eligibility 2. Fire Dept will contact you to arrange training and issue your key fob.