Loading...
06-27-11 CC WS Mtg MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2011 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizde called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizde; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Administrator Heck; ,Finance Director De7ong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. LICENSE AND PERMIT REVIEW Mayor Lizee stated the meeting packet contains information provided by Staff about the various non- building permits and licenses the City issues. There is information about each one's purpose, the fee for it, the estimated annual revenue received from it, the statutory authority for some of them and changes for consideration. Following is a summary of the highlights of each of the permit and license policies the City has and the ensuing discussion about them. Dog Licensing Administrator Heck explained State Statute allows cities to adopt ordinances to regulate animals. The City has a dog licensing ordnance. The purpose of the license is to ensure dogs are vaccinated against rabies and to provide them with identification. The fee for the license is $10 annually and approximately 350 dogs are issued licenses each year. Several communities have eliminated their dog license ordinances and replaced them with requirements that dogs have rabies tags, owner information and that dogs have an identification chip. One of the primary reasons for repealing the ordinance was the revenues received from the licenses did not cover the cost to administer the program. Another reason is it's difficult to enforce compliance. After consideration, the City of Golden Valley decided to keep its dog license ordinance and increase the license fee because dogs that use the City of Minneapolis Dog Park must have a license. Heck stated Staff recommends Council consider including types of animals, such as farm animals, in the City's animal control ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETI=NG MINUTES June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Mayor Lizee asked if Council has a desire to modify the ordinance. She also asked if Council would prefer to have the Planning Commission discuss the possibility of expanding the scope of the animal control ordinance to include other animals. Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought the dog licensing ordinance should be kept as is. She noted the City of Excelsior is planning to open a dog park and she is not sure if Excelsior will require the dogs that use that park to be licensed. She asked if cats need to have a license to which Councilmember Zerby responded no. Councilmember Zerby explained dogs that use the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Off -Leash Dog Park must be properly licensed and vaccinated. He asked what it costs the City to administer its dog licensing program. Administrator Heck responded he did not know and he will find out. Councilmember Siakel suggested the Planning Commission review all of the non- building permit and license programs and recommend what, if any, changes should be made. This could be included in the Commission's work plan. She stated she has some of the same questions already mentioned. She noted she thought having a fee for a dog license is reasonable. She stated if processing dog license requests is part of someone's job description there isn't an additional cost to the City because it's factored into their time. She suggested farm animals also be addressed in the animal control ordinance. Councilmember Woodruff stated he concurred that farm animals should also be addressed. He commented that some mini horses are not allowed and large horses are. Director Nielsen clarified mini horses are subject to the same regulations as large horses. Woodruff asked if a stable permit should be required for more than horses. He agreed with Councilmember Siakel that the Planning Commission should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the City's dog licensing, kennel licensing, and stable permit policies. Also, consideration should be given to regulating other types of animals. He commented that based on what he observed when he was out campaigning during the last City election 350 dogs is about one twentieth of the number of dogs living in the City. Kennel Licensing Administrator Heck explained State Statute gives the Minnesota Board of Animal Health the specific authority to license kennels. The City requires residents who have more than two dogs to obtain a kennel license, but this doesn't meet the statutory requirement of a kennel. Domestic pets do not fail under the statutory definition of kennel. The City can have some other type of license for residents who have more than two dogs; it just can't be called a kennel license. There was Council consensus to have the Planning Commission to reevaluate the City's animal control ordinance. That review should include the City's dog licensing, kennel licensing and stable permit policies as well as other domestic animals. Councilmember Siakel suggested Staff provide the Planning Commission with the information necessary to make an in depth assessment of what the policies should cover. It should also research what the enforcement requirements are for the various dog parks in the surrounding communities. She asked why more residents don't license their dogs. She stated the requirement for dogs to be licensed should be more consistently enforced. Councilmember Woodruff commented it's his recollection that both the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) and the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) have indicated it would be beneficial to them to have regulations consistent between their member cities. He stated he didn't think that the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 8 takes into account animal waste impacts when it considers issuing a stable permit for a horse and he thought that should be discussed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Zerby noted Excelsior requires dogs to be licensed and it has a $25 fee for dogs that have been spayed or neutered and a $40 fee for those that haven't been. The City of Tonka Bay's dog license fee is $32. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has a long standing policy of not addressing cats. Councilmember Woodruff recommended cats be included in the discussion. Councilmember Hotvet stated if the City regulations are very different from the surrounding communities she suggested the Planning Commission assess if the City's could be revised to be more consistent. Garbage Haulers Administrator Heck stated this will be discussed at a future work session because Council directed Staff to bring back additional information about various options for organized garbage collection systems. If Council decides to convert to an organized system from an open system the licensing requirements would change. If the decision is made to continue with an open system then licensing will have to be discussed. Tree Trimmers Administrator Heck explained State Statute requires all tree care and tree trimming companies to register with the Minnesota Commission of Agriculture. There is a $25 fee for registering. It's unlawful for any tree care and tree trimming company to advertise in the State if it has not registered. The City requires tree care and tree trimming companies to obtain a license from the City as well to ensure they have proper insurance. The fee for the City's license is $30. Twenty companies obtained a license in 2010. He stated Council may want to consider discontinuing this requirement because of the State requirement. Director Nielsen asked how long the State has had its registration requirement in place. Administrator Heck responded that went into affect in 2002. Nielsen stated the last time there was a major storm in the City some tree trimmers took financial deposits from residents and then left before performing the services purchased. Director Brown stated the license requirement is the City's way to make these companies go through the process of ensuring they had the property credentials. Councilmember Zerby asked if companies are asked to provide proof that they have the proper credentials (e.g., State license, insurance, bonding). Brown responded yes, and he explained tree care and tree trimming companies have to reapply for a license annually and at that time they must provide their credentials. Councilmember Woodruff commented that based on his personal experience some companies will tell you they are licensed by the State, but when you push harder for proof you find out they are not. He questioned if the City has the wherewithal to enforce this requirement. Director Brown stated the first thing the Public Works Department does when it encounters a tree trimming company doing work in the City is ask for proof that it has obtained a license from the City. Brown then stated the license requirement gives the Public Works Department an opportunity to resolve some of the field issues that can arise if companies don't comply. Councilmember Siakel stated she agreed with Director Brown and she thought this somewhat touches on the requirements for solicitors and canvassers. She then stated there is also a public safety component to tree trimming. She recommended the only exception she can see to enforcing the City licensing requirement before work begins is when there has been a major storm and there are not enough tree trimmers to handle the work. She stated the residents should be educated about the need to ask companies CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 8 for proof of being licensed with the City. Councilmember Hotvet cited that after the recent tornados in North Minneapolis there was a concerted effort to educate residents about asking for proof that companies had been licensed by Minneapolis. Hotvet suggested publishing information about licensing requirements in the City's newsletter each year. Councilmember Zerby asked why there is a need for a State and City license for tree care and tree trimming companies. He stated the residents could be educated about the need to ask for proof that the companies are registered with the State. Councilmember Siakel stated if there is an issue with the City requiring tree care and tree trimming companies to be licensed with the City when they are already licensed by the State that's one thing. If that isn't a problem then she thought there is not a problem with requiring them to be licensed with the City also. Councilmember Woodruff stated if the Public Works Department asks a company to produce proof that it has a State license and if it fails to provide proof then it has to quit working in the City. He then stated that is better than requiring companies to be licensed with the City. Administrator Heck explained the State Statute requiring tree care and tree trimming companies to register with the State does not prohibit local governments from requiring them to be licensed. Councilmember Zerby stated that from his vantage point if the City is going to take money for something he wants to make sure it's providing a service for that. He commented that the City's license for this is quite simple. It asks for name, address, phone number, proof of insurance (including the appropriate worker compensation insurance with the State and the necessary liability insurance), and then the applicant must sign the form noting that the information provided is accurate. He asked if the City asks for proof that they have the necessary insurances. Director Brown responded it does. Zerby noted that the Cities of Deephaven and Wayzata also require companies to obtain a license from them. Councilmember Hotvet noted that the Minneapolis requires companies to obtain a license from it. There was continued ensuing discussion about this topic because there were differing points of view about keeping the license requirement. There was Council consensus to direct the Planning Commission to assess the pros and cons for the City requiring tree care and tree trimming companies to obtain a license with the City. Fireworks Administrator Heck stated the City requires a person/company to obtain a license in order to sell fireworks in the City and the fee for that license is $100. Two companies apply for such a license. As part of the licensing process the City asks the EFD Fire Inspector to conduct an inspection of the area. He suggested Council consider reimbursing the EFD for its time. Mayor Lizde explained she has spoken with EFD Chief Gerber about reimbursing the EFD for the cost of the inspection. She related that Gerber stated the EFD would appreciate receiving the fees provided the EFD member cities continue to administer the licensing process, noting the EFD doesn't have the administrative resources to do that. She stated it would be beneficial to both the EFD and the SLMPD if the member cities had consistent ordinances that they are supposed to enforce or provide other services for. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 27, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point he thought the EFD member cities were already paying to have this type of inspection service provided. He then stated if the EFD Board believes the member cities should reimburse the EFD for providing this type of service then it should ask the member cites to consider that. There was consensus to leave the fireworks policy the way it is and not reimburse the EFD for fireworks related inspections. Lawn Fertilizer Applications Administrator Heck explained State Statute authorizes the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) to regulate the manufacture and application of fertilizers. The MDA requires all persons who apply fertilizer for hire obtain a license from it. It's his interpretation Statute prohibits a local unit of government from adopting or enforcing any ordinance prohibiting or regulating the registration, labeling, distribution, sale, handling, use, application or disposal of turf fertilizer that contains phosphorous. The City's requirement to license lawn fertilizirg applicators for hire is in conflict with State Statute and this licensing ordinance needs to be repealed. He noted that he has forwarded information about this to the City Attorney for his review and comment. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City could still license for -hue fertilizer applicators of non- phosphorous and other products. There was consensus to wait for the City Attorney's interpretation of State Statute Solicitors and Canvassers Administrator Heck stated the majority of cities have ordinances regulating solicitors and canvassers. The City's ordinance requires individuals to under go a background check which is conducted by the SLMPD. The City's fee for that is $50. The City charges more for other background checks it requires. Based on feedback received from SLMPD Chief Litsey, the City may need to amend its ordinance to allow for the background checks. Councilmember Zerby asked if the $50 fee covers the cost of the background check for both the City's administration and the SLMPD's work. Administrator Heck responded he does not know what those costs are and noted the cost for a therapeutic message license check of credentials is $100 and those checks are not done by the SLMPD. Councilmember Woodruff stated based on his experience solicitors and canvassers often don't know there is a need to be licensed with the City because they were dropped off in groups to do their work. In response to a question from Woodruff, Administrator Heck explained that he thought the only exemption there is for solicitors and canvassers is political soliciting and canvassing. Woodruff asked what the requirements are for high school sports players, for example. Director Nielsen commented he thought organizations such as boy scouts and girl scouts are exempt. Administrator Heck stated the City often doesn't have sufficient time to process these types of license applications. He clarified he was not implying the City should quit licensing solicitors and canvassers. Councilmember Siakel questioned if the City could differentiate the licensing requirements by for - profit organizations and not- for - profit organizations. She expressed her concern with allowing bus loads of unauthorized people being dropped off in the City to canvass or solicit the area. She again stated the CITY OF SIIOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 27, 2011 Page 6 of 8 residents should be encouraged to ask solicitors and canvassers to produce proof that they are licensed with the City. Councilmember Hotvet asked if the EPD's, SLMPD's and City's costs are being covered by the fee that is charged. Councilmember Siakel asked how many license applications the City receives for solicitors and canvassers. Administrator Heck stated it varies, and explained the license fee is per individual. Siakel asked if the licensees are given proof that they are licensed. Director Brown noted they are. Councilmember Woodruff stated he has no sympathy for those individuals who ask for a license with insufficient time for the City to process it and don't get one by the time they need it. Councilmember Zerby stated the City's ordinance states not - for -profit organizations are exempt from paying a fee. It does not stipulate they don't need to obtain a license. He questioned what the policy is for garage sales. Administrator Heck stated he will research this further and bring more information back to Council. Do to lack of time the following remaining items were discussed only briefly. Lawful Gambling Administrator Heck explained the State licenses all lawful gambling operations and cities provide their approval. The City adopted an ordinance requiring the licensing of lawful gambling activities to provide some control over the operations. The City assesses a fee of $50 for temporary licenses and $100 for a biannual license. Due to a change to State Statute cities are now prohibited from assessing a fee. The City's ordinance needs to be amended to remove the fee requirement. Councilmember Siakel asked if revenues from the sale of pull tabs are in part used for the good of the community. Administrator Heck stated currently the City does not require a percentage of the revenues be put toward something that is for the good of the community. Councilmember Woodruff stated he does not support requiring some portion of the revenues to be directed to the City because the enforcement of that would be very difficult. He noted the American Legion makes donations to various community events. Councilmember Siakel stated she is not aware of whether or not the Legion does that. Woodruff stated he thought the representatives from the Legion could come and talk to Council about what it does. Liquor License Administrator Heck explained State Statute gives cities the authority to license the on -sale and off -sale of intoxicating and non - intoxicating liquor. The fee for the licenses is defined by the State. The license fee is used, in part, to conduct a background check on the owners of the establishments as well as to supplement some of the funds the SLMPD gets for conducting compliance checks and education. Staff recommends leaving the liquor license policy and fee as is. Tobacco License CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 27, 2011 Page 7 of S Administrator Heck explained Council needs to decide if it wants the City to continue to license sellers of tobacco products or to have that done by Hennepin County. 'There are three establishments in the City that are licensed to sell tobacco products and the fee for a license is $250. The SLMPD has done compliance checks on the establishments selling tobacco products and there have been instances where they have been in violation of selling products to minors. The fine for selling to minors ranges from $75 to $250. He indicated he thought the fine limits are regulated by State Statute. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the fine was too little; the fine should be a $1000. Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought the licensing responsibility should remain with the City. Message' Therapist Administrator Heck explained there is one massage therapy business in the City and he thought Ridgeview Clinic also has a therapist. The license fee is $50 for each individual practitioner and the fee for a background check is $100. The background check is a staff review of the paperwork submitted including a check of the educational requirements. There are outstanding questions of whether the fee should apply to the establishment or each individual therapist and whether or not the licensing fees should be prorated. The prorating question applies to all of the licenses. He recommended the Planning Commission discuss this item. Councilmember Siakel asked why the City does a background check on the individual practitioner, noting most employers do a background check when they are hired. She thought the City should be more concerned with the business. Councilmember Zerby commented the City pretends to do a background check. Administrator Heck stated a lot of cities license just the establishment. He then stated there are independent contractors who work for chiropractors and they need a license to work in the City. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Comnssion drafted the massage therapist license ordinance a few years ago. There was concern that there could be potential mischief going on in massage therapy operations. Nielsen explained staff does check out a practitioner's credentials when they apply for a license. He commented that massage therapy schools have thanked the City for checking the credentials as part of the licensing process. He stated he was not sure if $50 is the appropriate fee. Councilmember Woodruff suggested that if a person applies for a license between January I" and June 30' the fee should be $50 for a one -year license. If they apply between July 1' and December 31" the fee should be $50 and it should be valid through the end of the next calendar year. Councilmember Zerby suggested the term of the license be a rolling twelve months; it would be valid for twelve months from the time it was issued. Councilmember Woodruff stated he could support that as did Councilmember Siakel. There was Council consensus to send this back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Adult Entertainment Establishment Administrator Heck stated Staff recommends leaving this ordinance as it is. Special Event, Parking, Recreational Fire, and Open Burning Permits CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 27, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Administrator Heck explained there is no charge for special event, parking, recreational fire, and open burning permits. The special event permit is to make the City, the ETD, and the SLMPD aware that a homeowner is going to have a large event at their home. There needs to be some assurance that emergency vehicles will be able to traverse the roadways. Parking permits are only issued for residents along Christmas Lake Road, Christmas Lane and Merry Lane. The residents petitioned for that and Staff doesn't believe there is any need to change that. The City doesn't process the recreational fire permit requests or the open burning requests; it only hands out the permit applications. Councilmember Hotvet stated she has received emails from residents expressing concern about recreational fires and open burning with regard to the frequency of the fires, how long the fires burn and what's being burned. She then stated there has been a lot published about the health issues associated with breathing smoke from the fires. She suggested this be discussed in more depth in the near future. Police and Fire False Alarms Administrator Heck explained the City assess a fee of $100 for the third false alarm for police response and a $200 fee for the second false alarm for fire response in a twelve -month period. He asked if the EFD should get the majority of the fire response fee being it incurs most of the cost. Rental Housing Administrator Heck explained Staff is currently working on an amendment to the rental housing ordinance to incorporate a requirement for well water testing. Director Nielsen suggested the $60 fee for a three -year license be increased to $75 — $90 to cover administrative costs. Councilmember Zerby asked what other surrounding cities charge for a rental housing license. Nielsen stated he will get that information for Council. 3. ADJOURN Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council: Work Session of June 27, 2011, at 7:08 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST 0610i�� L Christine Lizee, Mayor Administrator /Clerk