Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
072808 CC WS AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JULY 28, 2008 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Bailey Wellens 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. Review Agenda PET POLICIES (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) a. Mr. Wintheiser Dog Issue b. Ms. Lindy Martin request for consideration of "no pet limit" DISCUSSION OF DRAFT 2009 MOUND FIRE BUDGET (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) PHASE II WATER METER RADIO READ PROJECT (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) DEER MANAGEMENT (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum) ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT DISCUSSION (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum) ADJOURN SHOREWOOll 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years • 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator & Director of Public Works DATE: July 24, 2008 gE; Discussion Regarding Regulations for Kennel Licensing and Concerns by Mr. William Wintheiser Mr. William Wintheiser is the property owner of 850 Third Avenue. Attachment 1 is a site location map of the property. Mr. Wintheiser has voiced many concerns regarding the City's kennel licensing regulations and concerns regarding ongoing operations and enforcement of properties that are licensed for kennels. Specifically, the property of concern is located at 5730 Christmas Lake Road, which has been licensed for a kennel operation. Mr. Wintheiser has filed several complaints and concerns with the Police regarding the current kennel operation. Attachment 2 is an inspection and number of complaints that have been filed by Mr. Wintheiser, with the Animal Control officers. Feedback received from Mr. Wintheiser's and the Animal Control Officers definitely suggest that the barking by the animals kenneled at this property is very prevalent. However, it has not resulted in a violation, as the period of time to be able to issue a citation has not been violated. Section 701.07, Subdivision 3 states, that the. dog must bark repeatedly over a 5 minute time period. Mr. Wintheiser has indicated that while a citation has not been issued, he does not have the ability to enjoy his property, as anytime he is outside, the dogs are barking at him. Staff reviewed the situation against the current Code, Section 701.05 that regulates such operations. It appears that while this situation has been ongoing, it appears to be in compliance with the Code. The existing kennel is located near the existing property boundaries. Staff discussed that while this may meet standards for setbacks, there are not provisions for proper screening of such operations. Therefore, even if a kennel was located fifteen to twenty feet from the property boundary, the tendency of an animal that is going to bark at any movement within sight is still a concern. After substantial discussion with Mr. Wintheiser and the SLMPD Animal Control Officers, it was suggested that the current ordinance be revised to include proper screening, in addition to reviewing the setbacks for such operations. ~s ~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER a _ _~... ~' Mayor and City Council Kennel License Concerns July 24, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Mr. Wintheiser will be at Monday's work session to address the City Council regarding his concerns regarding the existing operations and regulations regarding such operations. t---- Z a ~ s-j `~, v-A ,....... i'~ ,. `. tr'i } 7 a ~ e ~"J ~j e1 ~~ S {, r'-0 ~~~ '4 v~'~ ,~ _-; ~ i s tai i d ~~ T l~ ~' _ LI ~tl.. 'tr 41. ~`i3~ ~~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ,ti J ~~ 5~ '~ ~ ,f~ ~F l1 1'~ ~I 1"a S _~l ~b 1 i !-~ SH( ~ yam' ~.~1 ~1 ^~^ i~l ~-I a ~, .~ 3 ~) i h~ !~ I U] !iL i ~3i ~~ ~:`1 ~, £ .. a, _ ._ .-, r't z'~ -~ ,, ,~ ,.... _ =~A~ i'n' ;k. ~ti ~_, .... , .. ..... ..e .r..,. e_ ~ ~ ~...._...._.,....E YAI i•1 (y1 _' + .m ~~. a _ ~ H p ~ ~ ~ U U O ~ W H H H SOUTH LAFCE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 24150 Smithtown Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Office (952) 474.3261 J _ I a Fax (952)474.4477 Animal Control Kennel Facilities Inspection ' 3P TODD SAUCIER Community Service OF(Icer SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT p,~-rte, l~ Owne. r Address S ~ ~~ ~~-~s~t ~~ -~i,~.s lea-~~. ~~_ Phone ,~ D~"~ ~' ..,~, City S ~ct~E~~x~:"~ State r'~t~l Zip ~°~ I Number of Dogs ~ Licenses # _ D A`~~"~ P. ~ Confinement Method `~~-tic~'l~ ~~~ ~ y~at~s Pass ~ Fail Rabies Certifications Pass ~~ Fail Shelter Pass ~ 4 Fail Shelter structures and setback requirements Pass X Fail Sanitary kennel conditions Pass Fail ~C Outdoor boundary fence If you have failed any part of your inspection, corrections must be completed within 10 business days. It is your responsibility to call for a re-inspection of your kennel. If corrections are not completed at this time, your kennel license wil{ be denied or revoked. A copy of this inspection report will be kept on file at the South Lake Minnetonka police Department. Enclosed is a copy of the city ordinance or state statute for your review with other necessary information. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the South Lake Minnetonka Police Animal Control at (952)960-1676 or animalcontrol@southlakepd.com ICR # ©~~~c~0.~ l~ Date z..-~ ~ -2.~E~ Animal control officer ~~~ ~~~-~~-?~~S 24150 SMITHTOWN ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 Dispatcher (763) 525-6210 Office. (952) 474-3261 Fax (952) 474-4477 tsaucler~southiakepd,com Badge # ~ i ATTACHMENT 2 COMPLAINTS 701.05 Shorewood -Animal Regulations 701.05 (1) If an outdoor kennel is provided, it must be constructed of suitable material to maintain and secure the keeping of dogs and to allow for sufficient space for the dogs. Standards for adequate shelter for dogs is specified in M.S. § 343.40 and is adopted by reference, including any amendments to that section. The space must be inspected and approved by the Animal Enforcement Officer. All surfaces must be constructed of material to provide for proper cleaning, drainage and maintenance and needs of the dogs. Kennel structures must be located within the prescribed setback requirements for the property and shall be located at least ten feet from the property boundary. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner. No boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet to an existing parallel boundary line fence; (2) Owners must ensure that dogs kept on a licensed premises do not create a nuisance by excessive barking or by creating unsanitary conditions. d. Notification of any prior violations during the previous licensing period. Subd. 2. Denial of license. The city may deny any license request based upon one or more of the following: a. The Animal Enforcement Officer finds the kennel facilities inadequate; b. Conditions of the license are not met; c. A nuisance condition is found to be created by the dogs or owner; d. The kennel creates a public health and safety hazard or has placed the animals in an unreasonable endangerment. The city shall investigate all complaints and may issue a citation for violations. After a complaint has been received and found to be valid regarding a kennel license, the holder of the license shall appear before the City Council to state or explain their position. The appearance shall be within 30 days of the initial complaint and after notification of all contiguous property owners. The City Council will then decide the status of the License. Subd. 3. Exceptions. a. An applicant may apply to the City Council for an exception to the maximum number of dogs allowed per property. b. This section shall not apply to nonresidents or dogs kept within the city for less than 30 continuous days. 701-4 CITY OF sxoxEwooD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952,) 474-3236 FAX (952} 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us February 14, 2005 Mr. William Wintheiser 850 Third Avenue Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: BARKING DOGS AT 5730 CHRISTMAS-LAKE ROAD Dear Mr. Wintheiser: I wanted to follow-up with you regarding your complaint today of the barking dogs at 5730 Christmas Lake Road, and your complaint of the kennel being located on your property line. I have submitted a request to the South Lake Minnetonka Animal Control to investigate the site and to monitor the address for barking dogs over the next 2-3 weeks. I have also notified the owners of the complaint, provided them a copy of the City's dog ordinance, and reminded them of the ordinance regarding excessive nuisance barking. I have also enclosed a copy of the dog ordinance for your information. I can advise you to continue to call Animal Control at 763-525-6210, to report future barking dog incidents. Animal Control officers will need to monitor this for a violation. Call them each time you witness the excessive barking. For prosecution as a misdemeanor, an officer must observe a violation before enforcement action can occur. You indicated you wanted to talk to the City Attorley. The City's prosecuting attorney is Ken Potts. His number is 952-474-4240. He may be able to direct you on any further action you might be able to take. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Jean Panchyshyn Deputy Clerk . Enclosure cc: Shorewood City Counci] Ken Potts SLMPD Animal Control .~ =*{ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 1 of 2 Jean Panchyshyn From: Jean Panchyshyn Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008.3:17 PM To: 'dhohertz@southlakepd.com' Cc: Joe Pazandak (jpazandak@ci.shorewood.mn.us) Subject: barking dogs complaint Attachments: Nov 2006 complaint.pdf; Shw dog ord.pdf; barking dog complaint.pdf Hi Dave, I just got off the phone with a resident, William Wintheiser of 850 3rd Avenue who is complaining about barking dogs at 5730 Christmas Lake Road. This address has a kennel license (3 dogs) and Mr. Wintheiser said he has complained about barking dogs at this address for many years. In November, 2006, he filed a written complaint with us -this is attached, along with Craig's reply. I also have found a record of a complaint from ~ 997 (not attached). Mr. Wintheiser is very frustrated, he says that when he calls the police, they can't do anything because it takes the police an hour to arrive, and by then the dogs are no longer barking. He wants the city to do something. Can you let me know the number of animal complaints at 5730 Christmas Lake Road? Also, can you call the Ito schedule a time to inspect the premises, as Mr. Wintheiser implied that the kennel was on his property line. I've attached the section of our Ordinance which gives Animal Control the right to inspect, and the kennel application that the~- signed, consenting to an inspection. If there are any questions about the location of the kennel or fence, perhaps our Building Official can assist (he will be out of the office until Tuesday). Mr. Wintheiser wanted talk to the City Attorney. If he calls back, I will give him Ken Potts' number (he was calling from his car, so couldn't write the number down). I told him he needs to call Animal Control to file a complaint, but he kept saying he has done this, but they can't ever do anything. Can you monitor the 5730 Christmas Lake Rd address over the next 2-3 weeks with some early morning /evening drive-by checks? I will again encourage Mr. Wintheiser to call dispatch when the barking occurs. I've also attached a letter I am sending today to 5730 Christmas Lake Road to let them know we received a complaint, and remind them that they must ensure the dogs are not creating a nuisance by barking (I'll send them our ordinance}. l've also indicated you may be contacting them to schedule a site visit. Is there anything else (should/ can do? If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Jean Panchyshyn Deputy Clerk City of Shorewood Ph: 952-474-3236 Fax:952-474-0128 2/14/2008 R"~, '~- a E` ~ ' -~ s _ ~ ~§ ~w~ ,} ~~ ~~ d ~; ~~ ~ 3~ ~' ~~ CI'T~ OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX {952j 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us February 14, 2008 5730 Christmas Lake Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. and Ms. The City has.received a complaint of nuisance barking dogs at 5730 Christmas Lalce Road. Our records indicate that you have three dogs licensed, as well as a kennel license. As you are aware, the City's Kennel Ordinance states that owners must ensure that dogs kept on a licensed property do not create a nuisance by excessive barking. I have also highlighted the Dog Nuisance section of the Shorewood City Code. The South Lake Minnetonka Animal Control has also been notified of this complaint. I have requested the Animal Control Officer contact you to conduct a site visit. This complaint will be further investigated, and I will report back to you regarding the outcome of the investigation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952-474-3236. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Jean Panchyshyn Deputy Clerk is ~.~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ,~~~ a n~ s y~~ ~~ .`~~,, ~ CTTY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhal(@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years ~ 1956 - 2006 November 20, 2006 William Wintheiser 850 Third Avenue Shorewood; Minnesota 55331 Dear Mr. Wintheiser: q With regard to your complaints about neighbors' barking dogs, you should also be contacting the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department through the Hennepin County Dispatch Center, 763.525.6210, if Orono Animal Control is unable to respond promptly. The Dispatch Center will call an SLMPD officer to respond at any time, and an SLMPD officer will arrive sometime thereafter depending on other activity that may be in progress. An SLMPD officer will then be present for a period of time to determine whether a violation of the City's barking dog ordinance or leash law is occurring. For prosecution as a misdemeanor, a third party such as an officer must observe a violation before enforcement action may proceed. Otherwise, you have the option to pursue civil remedies on your own. Sincerely, Cr Ci John Nieling, Deputy Chief, SLMPD Orono Animal Control Officer ©s ~Q~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER i ....., ._ ~,. '.l . City of Orono/city of Shorewood 11/13/06 Animal control ordinance ~ a~;14~1f ~ ~ ~~~:~ To whom this concerns M~=~- -_ ~- -'--'"` On Saturday Nov 11 2006 as a guest of mine was leaving my house at around 8:30 am. She started her vehicle, the went to scrape frost off the windshield. The persons with the dogs at 5730 Christmas lake road. then deliberately let out their dogs to bark at my guest. They do this often. The barking dogs are within inches of my property line and were about fifteen feet from my guest. The owners do nothing to rectify the offense. They simply let their dogs bark for awhile then the dogs go back in the house. They have doing this for at least the past decade. I have been complaining about it to no avail for more than decade. When I call animal control I get excuses why they cannot do anything or they call back hours later or show up hours later. According to the Shorewood barking dog ordinance- this would constitute untimely barking. You may contact my guest for verification of the events. I also observed on October 3 2006 one of their dogs wandering in my yard. i did have it recorded on my video surveillance system but has since been overwritten and is no longer available. I categorically wish to file a disturbing of the peace complaint and a violation of the barking dog ordinance and an out of control dog violation at this time. Finally let me say that I belive that I or any one of my guests do have the civic right to be on my property and not be rudely blasted by someones dogs. However if the owners and/or govertung bodies seem to think that dogs have as much right to bark at me or my guests then this should be settled in a court of law. So far my complaints have gone unheeded. Most Sincerely William Wintheiser 850 3'm Ave Shorewood MN 952-474-3547 Copies to: Orono Animal Control City of Shorewood x~;~ -- ~ _ ..._, r .. r~. t< ~__ - ? ~.~ ~ a~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ ,~ ~ -- - -_ . .: 4 ~u.,~` .~'w~a~`~ ~ ' - ~fi ,~ ,~ •, ; ~~.- . ~: 9~~ ~j Y" ~'~± Y~~~ ~~~ Y .M Y ,,,. ~~t.L ~,ti ~f9 ~ ~ t ~ f ~ ~ Y ~ i ~ r1 ~.. ~~ ,y'a-~. '~ ~ ~il~. C ~t 3 ~x T ~ * ~4~ 1 ', ~';`` ~. 11i k ~~ ~ ~: !...f r l '- i ~{ a ~~i i 3 _t, 4~ ~t~ e ` 3 ~ E 'r. t~ yts 'Y'F ~ ~,~ ~~ ~~ ., ;. t k ~~~ Y-:3 , ~k K W l~l "~ ~ ~~ ~~~ az~ u d M~ ~ .Y YY ~~ ~.'1'~ h yu W ' h 1, K ~) ` ~' y ~ `~ Silo ~,1 } '~ '~` '~ 7 ~ ~ +y4 ~ ~ kLY ~'~'~~ V ~] ~~~ ':'~ ? d ' '. ~~Flr ~~ y .r: { r - ~ ,~'' ~ :u. ~:. ~~''. -. j ~' ~' ~' y 701.04 Dogs 701, OS females. The license tag shall be securely attached around the dog's neck and kept there at all times during the license period. If the tag is lost or stolen, the owner shall receive a duplicate license and tag upon payment to the Administrator a fee as provided in § 1301.02 of this code. Subd. 3. Rabies inoculation. No license shall be issued for a dog unless the owner shall show written evidence that the dog has been inoculated for the prevention of rabies within the past two years. Subd. 4. Term of license. The license period shall be for the whole or unexpired portion of the year ending on the ensuing December 31. Subd. 5. New residents of city. Any person who moves into and becomes a resident of the city and who owns a dog within the city shall cause the same to be registered and licensed as provided hereinbefore within a period of not more than 30 days after becoming a resident of the city. (1987 Cade, § 701.03) (Ord. 81, passed 11-25-1974; Ord. 173, passed 8-12-1985; Am, Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989; Am. Ord. 263, passed 12-14-1992) 701.05 LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER OF DOGS. Subd, 1. Kennel license. Within the limits of the city, no more than two dogs over the age of six months shall be allowed in any household unless the owners shall first obtain a kennel license. This license shall allow an owner to keep up to four dogs over the age of six months. Any person desiring a kennel license shall make written application upon a form prescribed by and containing the information as required by the city. Every owner is required to keep a valid, individual license tag securely fastened to the dog's collar or harness. The owner shall pay a fee for the kennel license as provided in § 1302 of this code. This license shall be valid for the period of one year, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31, and is nontransferable. The application shall contain the following information: a. The number of dogs over the age of six months to be maintained on the premises; b.. A description of the real estate property upon which the animals will be kept; c. Written authorization for the city to inspect the premises which shall be valid for the length of the license. Application for a renewal license shall be inspected upon receipt of complaints. The inspection shall be to confirm compliance with the following criteria: 701-3 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY CODE 701.05 d Subd. 2. Shorewood -Animal Regulations 701.05 (1) If an outdoor kennel is provided, it must be constructed of suitable material to maintain and secure the keeping of dogs and to allow far sufficient space for the dogs. Standards for adequate shelter for dogs is specified in M.S. § 343.40 and is adopted by reference, including any amendments to that section. The space must be inspected and approved by the Animal Enforcement Officer. All surfaces must be constructed of material to provide far proper cleaning, drainage and maintenance and needs of the dogs. Kennel structures must be located within the prescribed setback requirements for the property and shall be located at least ten feet from the property boundary. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner. No boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet to an existing parallel boundary line fence; (2) Owners must ensure that dogs kept on a licensed premises do not create a nuisance by excessive barking or by creating unsanitary conditions. Notification of any prior violations during the previous licensing period. Denial of license. The city may deny any license request based upon one or more of the following: a. The Animal Enforcement Officer finds the kennel facilities inadequate; b. Conditions of the license are not met; c. A nuisance condition is found to be created by the dogs or owner; d. The kennel creates a public health and safety hazard or has placed the animals in an unreasonable endangerment. The city shall investigate all complaints and may issue a citation for violations. After a complaint has been received and found to be valid regarding a kennel license, the holder of the license shall appear before the City Council to state or explain their position. The appearance shall be within 30 days of the initial complaint and after notification of all contiguous property owners. The City Council will then decide the status of the license. Subd. 3. Exceptions. a. An applicant may apply to the City Council for an exception to the maximum number of dogs allowed per property . b. This section shall not apply to nonresidents or dogs kept within the city for less than 30 continuous days. 701-4 701.05 Dogs 701.07 Subd. 4. Revocation of kennel license. In addition to any other sanctions herein provided, violation of any of the terms of this chapter shall be grounds for termination of the privilege of keeping up to four dogs, and the license may be revoked. Revocation may occur for a violation attributable to any dog kept by the owners. (1987 Code, § 701.04) (Ord. 299, passed 6-12-1995) 701.06 RUNNING AT LARGE. It shall be unlawful for the dog of any person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, to run at large. The finding of any dog running at large shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this section by the owner of the dog. (1987 Code, § 701.05) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989) 701.07 DOG NUISANCES. Subd. 1. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and control of his animals to prevent them from becoming a public nuisance. Subd. 2. It shall be considered a nuisance for any animal to bark excessively, continuously or untimely, to frequent school grounds, parks, or public beaches, to chase vehicles, to molest, annoy or bite any person if the person is not on the property of the owner or custodian of the animal, to molest, defile or destroy any property, public or private, or to defecate in or upon public property or the property of another without being cleaned up immediately by the person in charge of the animal. The person having custody of the dog is responsible for disposing of the dog feces in a sanitary manner. Failure on the part of the owner or custodian to prevent his animals from committing an act of nuisance shall subject the owner or custodian to the penalty hereinafter provided. Subd. 3. The phrase TO BARK EXCESSIVELY, CONTINUOUSLY OR UNTIMELY includes, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by any single or combination of dogs which can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where the dog is being kept and which noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the five minute period. UNTIMELY includes, but is not limited to, the noise which occurs repeatedly over atwo-minute period of time with one-minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the two-minute period between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (1987 Code, § 701.06) (Ord. 232, passed 9-10-1990; Ord. 334, passed 4-27-1998; Am. Ord. 394, passed 4-14-2003; Am. Ord. 398, passed 9-8-2003) 701-5 701:08 Shorewood -Animal Regulations 701.09 701.08 CONFINEMENT OF CERTAIN DOGS. Every dog in heat shall be confined in a building or other secure enclosure in the manner that the dog cannot come into contact with another dog, except for planned breeding. (1987 Code, § 701.07) (Ord. 213, passed 3-27-1989) 701.09 IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION PROCEDURES. Subd. 1. Authority to impound, citations. The person charged with the enforcement of this chapter shall have authority to take into custody and impound those dogs found at large within the city. If the Animal Enforcement Officer is unable to take a dog into custody, he or she may, where possible, follow the dog to the property of its owner and may issue a citation to the owner for violation of this chapter. The Officer shall not be authorized to take into custody a dog once it is upon the property of its owner except where the officer finds no ane present upon the property and custody is necessary to prevent the dog from further running at large or except in those instances hereinafter prescribed where the custody is required or permitted for the health and welfare of the public. Subd. 2. Pound. The city shall provide an adequate pound or facilities where dogs taken into custody by an Animal Enforcement Officer shall be kept and properly fed until disposed of according to the provisions of this chapter. Subd. 3. Notice of impoundment. Within 24 hours after taking a dog into custody, the Animal Enforcement Officer shall, if the animal has on it an official tag, notify the person shown as owner of the dog that the animal is in his.or her custody and will not be disposed of if redeemed within a stated time, which time shall not be less than five full days after the animal was taken into custody. Subd. 4. Redemption by owner. Every owner or person having the custody of a dog may redeem the same from the Animal Enforcement Officer by paying for board and associated costs for each day or fraction thereof as the animal is held in custody by the Animal Enforcement Officer and obtaining a license far the animal in accordance with this chapter if the license has not hereinbefore been issued for the animal. The associated costs shall include an impounding fee set by n of the City Council from time to time. In determining the impounding fee, the Co ncil may establish a schedule of fees based on the number of times a dog has been im unded. In addition to the payment of the board, licensing and associated costs s forth in this section, the owner shall remain subject to all other penalties contain d in this chapter. D ~G~t n G~-e- 701-6 > _____Original Message----- > From: Lindy Martin [mailto:sheltie1@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 7:01 PM > To: chrislizee@mchsi.com; Dick Woodruff; Laura Turgeon; Jeff Bailey; > Martin Wellens > Subject: Shorewood Pet limit law > Hello Shorewood Mayor and City Council, > I would like to propose getting rid of the 4-dog per household limit > in Shorewood city code. In support of my view, please read the > following article. > Thank you, > -Lindy Martin > This is the html version of the file > http://www.sfspca.org/advocacy/pdf/pdf catrights/pet_limits.pdf > Pet Limit Laws: > Closing the Door to Loving Homes > April 10, 2000 > Proponents of pet limit laws argue that these ordinances are necessary > to stop animal > neglect and abuse caused by people who take in more animals than they > can > adequately care for. Others claim that pet limits are necessary to > ensure sanitary > conditions, or to maintain safe and pleasant neighborhoods. > But are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, > unreasonable noise, and lack > of sanitation? Or, do they end up limiting the availability of loving > homes and putting > the lives of dogs and cats at risk? > The San Francisco SPCA has considered the various claims made for > strict pet limit laws > and found little in the way of evidence, or common sense, to support > them. What we > found was that pet limit laws: > * are unnecessary to protect the well-being of people and animals > * are arbitrary and intrusive > * penalize responsible pet owners > * force many caregivers to stop providing care to homeless animals > * put the lives of even well cared-for animals at risk > At the same time that household limits discourage responsible > individuals from > providing a good home for more needy animals, they do not prevent an > irresponsible > one from acquiring unlimited animals. Unfortunately, caring can't be > mandated, and a > pet limit law will only end up punishing those who care. > illions of compassionate people provide dogs and cats with food, love, > and > shelter in their homes. Others may even put aside their own needs in > order to > care for beloved pets. Still others work tirelessly to feed, foster, > and > rehabilitate strays and unwanted abandoned animals, all at their own > expense. > For every one of these caregivers, a pet limit law may exact a heavy > toll. Each of these > individuals may face citations, fines, other penalties, and even > confiscation of the > animals they love. > For these reasons, The San Francisco SPCA opposes legislation > arbitrarily limiting the > number of pets a person can care for in their home. > Pet Limit Laws are Unnecessary > Are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, unreasonable > noise, and lack of > sanitation? Do pet limit laws protect the well-being of people and > animals? > In our view, they do not. Whereas one individual may be able to > responsibly care for > and nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even > one. And if > problems arise, enforcement agencies already have ample ammunition at > their disposal > in terms of animal welfare, health and property rights laws. In fact, > unsanitary > conditions, excessive noise, and interference with property are all > unlawful in virtually > every community-regardless of whether pets inhabit the premises or > not. > Pet Limit Laws are Intrusive and Arbitrary > Just how are pet limits determined? In one community, the limit might > be two pets. In > others, four, five, eight, even twenty pets might be allowed. More > often than not, the > number is arbitrarily chosen. > Enforcement is also arbitrary. In response to concerns about pet limit > laws, some > communities have admitted that these ordinances "will be enforced on a > complaint > basis, and pets which are maintained indoors or do not raise the ire > of neighbors will > not generate enforcement." While it may sound reassuring to some, this > justification > leaves the door wide open for pet limit laws to be used as a weapon of > retribution in > neighbor disputes over concerns totally unrelated to pets. > Laws that regulate a person's behavior inside their home should seek > an appropriate > balance between the public's safety and welfare and the individual's > right to privacy. > But while pet limit laws are highly intrusive, there is little, if > any, corresponding benefit > to public safety. What good is gained from an uncompromising > prohibition against > more than a limited number of pets, particularly if they are confined > to an owner's > property and create no problems? Certainly, if neighbors are totally > unaware of their > presence, prohibiting pets does not in any way protect or maintain > anyone's health, > happiness or peace of mind. And what about multi-pet households where > neighbors do > not mind or even enjoy the presence of these animals? In fact, there > is no benefit gained > from such aprohibition-nor is there likely to be any enforcement. > Should government pass laws that are not going to be enforced? Should > communities > outlaw behavior that does not impact neighbors or interfere with the > rights of others? > Local governments have embraced the position that because responsible > multi-pet > households will not generate enforcement, these residents need not > fear violating the > law. In essence, local governments are making outlaws out of normally > law-abiding citizens and > telling them it is OK to break the law as long as they don't get > caught! > Passing laws that aren't enforced or are enforced sporadically is > unfair and > counterproductive. Few people are likely to comply with a pet limit > law that isn't > enforced. And those who voluntarily comply can probably be counted > among the most > responsible pet owners in the community. There is little equity or > sense in enacting a > law that only ends up penalizing the very people whose behavior is > already exemplary. > And such a view undermines our respect for the law. > Needless to say, truly irresponsible pet owners will not be affected. > If the law is not > enforced, they are free to ignore it. If it is selectively enforced > against them, they are > likely to surrender their animals, adding to the numbers of dogs and > cats killed, or > abandon them, adding to some of the perceived problems the law was > intended to > solve. > Pet Limit Exemption Permits are also Intrusive and Risky > Many local jurisdictions enacting pet limit laws allow caretakers who > have more than > the allowable number of pets to apply for an "exemption" permit. > Therefore, these > jurisdictions claim, "responsible" pet owners need not fear the law. > This view is > shortsighted and would put multi-pet households in a Catch-22: > choosing between not > seeking a permit and violating the law on the one hand; or, applying > for a permit, but > risking exposure and confiscation of their pets if they are denied. In > other words, multi- > pet households would fear applying for a permit, because to do so > would expose them > to penalties and possible loss of their beloved companions if denied a > permit. And, in > some jurisdictions, the exemption permit requires a "kennel" license- > which cannot be > granted in many neighborhoods due to zoning restrictions, no matter > how > "responsible" the caretaker. In short, no exemption at all! > Pet Limit Laws put the Lives of Animals at Risk > It is not uncommon for rescued animals, particularly those who are > hard-to-place by > virtue of abandonment or abuse, to be in a "foster" environment for > long periods of > time. Foster homes are in critically short supply in almost every > community and it is > common for such homes to temporarily house more animals than the > average pet > owner. In addition, there are countless Good Samaritans who feed and > care for > neighborhood strays and feral cats. Many pet limit laws define these > individuals as > "owners" for purposes of enforcing local ordinances. It is ironic that > groups and > individuals rescuing and caring for homeless and unwanted dogs and > cats (often at > personal expense) should be targeted for restrictive and punitive > legislation. > Of greater concern, caregivers and rescue groups may be forced to stop > caring for > foster pets or homeless cats, because to do so would violate the local > pet limit law, > resulting in needy animals being denied care, and also leading to > increased euthanasia > at taxpayer expense. By contrast, the maintenance of multi-pet > households or the > feeding of homeless cats-including sterilization, food, and veterinary > care-is > uniformly accomplished by private citizens at no cost to local > government or taxpayers. > And pet owners targeted for enforcement may be forced to surrender > their well cared- > for animals to local shelters where they, too, are at risk for > euthanasia and where > taxpayers will have to foot the bill. > Pet Limit Laws Close the Door to Loving Homes > A town council on the East Coast recently expanded its animal control > law to include a > provision making it illegal for any resident to own more than five > cats. One resident, a > 69-year old woman who cared for homeless neighborhood cats, was > threatened with > fines for violating the law despite the fact that she had sterilized > and vaccinated all the > cats. She was given two options by local authorities: turn away the > cats who came to > her back door looking for food and water; or trap them and turn them > over to the > animal control facility where they would likely be killed. For someone > who ve"ry much > loved animals, this was no choice at all. Distraught by the threat of > legal sanctions, > however, she was forced to comply. > And in a county neighboring our own, an elderly couple who cared for > several > sterilized and well-cared for cats at their private residence were > threatened with > citations and fines because of a pet limit law that allowed for the > caring of only four > cats. Under threat, the cats had to be relocated to avoid the risk > that they would be > impounded and killed at the local animal control facility. The cats > lost the only home > and caregivers they had ever known, and the couple lost their beloved > companions. > Just as pets already in homes may be threatened by limit laws, > homeless pets awaiting > the chance for a loving new home are also at risk as potential > adopters are discouraged > from adopting a stray or visiting the local shelter and saving a life. > For much of history, animals were considered mere commodities who > pulled our > wagons, provided the products for our farms, herded our sheep, and > kept our barns > free of mice. During the last century, however, socio-economic and > moral changes in > society at large have produced changes in the status of animals as > well. Many > animals-dogs and cats in particular-are now overwhelmingly companions > instead of > servants. In addition, government laws and services have evolved from > promoting > animals as property to protecting them as cherished pets. > At the same time, pets do so much good for the community: people of > all ages, but > particularly the elderly and the young, enjoy their companionship. For > single people, > dogs and cats can offer a welcome relief from loneliness. For > children, an animal in the > home provides warmth and unconditional love, and teaches > responsibility and > consideration for the needs of another creature. Those who suffer from > disease or > injury often experience a therapeutic benefit from their presence. For > the lonely, a pet > can provide an incentive to get up in the morning. Animals can also > provide a sense of > safety and security, allowing many people freedom they would not > otherwise have. > While pet ownership may not be a fundamental right, it is > unquestionably an integral > aspect of our daily life-which cannot be dismissed lightly and should > not suffer > unwarranted limits. In our view, there is little justification for > targeting well-cared for > animals and putting them at risk for impoundment and euthanasia. SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years • 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator & Director of Public Worlcs DATE: July 24, 2008 RE: Draft 2009 Budget, Mound Fire Department Just hours before the City Council packet was distributed, staff received the very first draft of the Mound Fire Department Budget for 2009. While not having a lot of time to digest the materials in total, these are being transmitted tot eh City Council such that preliminary budget numbers can be explored. While Chief Pedersen will not be present for this, it was thought to distribute these numbers for feedback and consideration as soon as possible. This material will be presented in detail, by staff, at Monday's work session. _N~ ;~` en ~~° .~ ~®p® PRINTED ON RECYC~EO PAPER h z a a N W .'~ W ~ ~ . ,.., C~ rcc3 `./ o O a., ^d ~ O A a~ bA P~ O O N W A O U H W A P~ <+, ~ w ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~ O b4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N OU ~ ~ , ~ ~' cn ~ N " ~ ~, ,~Tr ~ N , ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ¢, N ~ ~ N ~ S „ y." ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U N ~ '~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ y e, ¢i ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ .~ ~~~ b ~ ~ o U~ U «i ~ N U ~ U ~ bn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ a ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ,~ ~ , . o ~ ° i ~ ~ o w ~ ti d O ~ ~ w ~° ° ~ ~ a ~ w Q C7 ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~, ~ ~ Q a .~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ • ~, bA ~ ~, p1 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ w d a~ O N ~ ~ w 0 a, O ,--~ H W ~ ~ ~ ~ °o A ca p ~ M b9 a~ '~.~ U ~ ~" N w a h W Q p ~ ~ Q ~ ~ w i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a° ~ ~ o U ~ o ~ ' ~, ~ ~" a~ ~ O ~ ~ .~ ~ o U .--. O N ~ O O 0 ° ~ o o N ~ 69 64 69 ~ "~' ~ ~ . ~ ~. ~ ~ ~.~ ;~ o ~, ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ^~ s-i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~" ~, ~ ~ Vi ~, iii ~"+ ~ ~ +~~' ~ ~~" r~/1 .~ N ~ ~ CCi ~ N bA N ~ Uj cd ~ C~ V1 O p ~ N ~ ~ r--~ ~"i E-+ (~ s.. ~ U ~ 'C U N O ~ N O N ~ ~ ~ cd ~ Q ~ O y,y ~ ~, O ~ ~-+ ~ .~~' '~d~ «i ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o a o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d d ~ ~ , ~ 3 C/~ ~ U .~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ Vl bA ~ ~ O ~ o ~ ' ~ •~ U ~ ~+ ~, w ¢~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 4. w ~ 00 O N ~O t~ Q~ O N N N N N N N c'n O O O O 00 O O O~ ~ d~ 00 N d~ O~ ~ ~ M 64 69 69 69 64 (f3 69 b9 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~, ~ O ~ N ~ ~ O N 3~. N ~' v~ ~ "C U ~ S~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd ~ U , • .-~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ w O bA a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ x o ~ 'cab '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~' ~ ~ ~., ~ ~ i Z ~ ~ ~ o `~ w ~ ~ ~ d~ a,~0 U ~ ~,v~ ~U ~ Q ra a~<C ,~ a ~ w¢ w ~ w¢ ~, a~ ~. °' ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ •~ U ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ,~ ~ ." w ~ ~' ~" o ~ ~ A~ aA ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,b y~,~ .~ ~ b~A vii ~ N ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ w E-' a a, ~ ~ C7 W C7 C7 ~ ~ oo .-~ N ~n ,~ o ~ r• M d- O O O O N N N M ~n ~O o0 00 00 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V'~ N O O d1 O N ~ ~ O ~O O tI~ 00 O O ~ ~ ~ ~, O N O ~ O ~ m 69 m 69 ~ 64 d= £f? d' b9 oo 64 ~ 69 ~' 69 ~ 69 N 69 ~--~ 69 O~ 64 ~-+ 69 A°° a~ U ~ ' ~ " ^ ~ ~. ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ . ~ N U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ «3 ~ ~, ~~'' ' „" O O U N +--~ r--~ U cC ,~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ O O V ,~ . ~ ~ ~ O" ~ rte-' ~ _ ~ ¢i N ~" Ste. ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S~, N U ~ ~ ~ N ,b N i-i ~-+ a3 ~ . ~ O ~ O v~ ~ ~ s-+ O O ~1, ~ N ~r ~ ap ~ t"' U O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~., ~ tO+ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ O w~ z x.~ ~ ¢~~~a .~ U ~ U ~ .'" r~ / ~ ~ ~, .'. ~ b~A -a ~ b~A W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ".-~ ~ ~ N •~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U S= U ' ~", N H ~ bq w~~s '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ O o ~ ~ ...~ bn .o ~"' ' "C ~ ~ ~ 4"' ' ~ .V •~ ~ N ~+ ~ .~ ~ U~ ~ vz L~ ~~, ~ bq N N N O s-'S-J U a ¢, ~ . ~ .~ ~ Q ~ W s., W O O ~ oo `n C ~ ~ ~, ~ bA N ~ '`'' N N O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~." ,.O • . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ w ~ w p N ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O .'" r-+ N ,~ ~ ~, ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~N 'C 4" +~' N rn ' ..fl ~°' a3 N v~ cd ~ ..-. ~ • Q ~ cd O ~ ~ U O by ~'~ ~ cd ~ , ~ ~ ~'' ~ s ~ ' ~ ~ ~ '~d N r--~ ~ ,__, c~i ~ O , S -, i ~ ~ .~ x N V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~; U ~ N . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ w ~ ~ ~ ~wZ a ~ ~ dd Q QQw q ~', O ~ '~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ N U ~ N W ~ ~ ~ b A ~ rn ~--~ ~ '~ ~ U ~~ '_"... ~" ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q dO" ~ ~ dO ~' ~ dM' ~ dM' Q\ O O ~ O O ~ O N ~ N ,_; O O 00 M O O ~ O O O N ~ N O M '--~ M ~--~ M d' M 69 6~? 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 ~ ~ °' o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ °w~U ~ Uw ~ ~-. 3Qv1 U ~ ~ v, ~~.,~~ w~ Q. rx~ v~U ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ C/1 ~ ~ ~ • ^' w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U ~ o ~ O w ~ ~ ~ •v N ~ • ~ '. ~ O ~ ~ cd" cd" ~' cvd N ~ U O ti U U w w W ~, .,., a ~ ~ o E ~ O ~ Ey ~ ~ 0 ~ U ~ o ..., ;,~7 ~ ~ ~ dam- dam- ° ~ ~ vi ~°o c°~ ~ N ~ O ~ O O O O O O O o0 O~ ~ oo O O O O O ,--~ ~ M O ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~ ~..r ~ ~-+ d' N M N ~O ~ ~ ~ 69 69 64 69 69 69 64 Ei4 y4 Mound Fire Department July 2008 Understanding and Analyzing the 2009 Budget and Expenses Category/Description 2008 Budget $ Amount Percent *13ud;;et 'Total 21109 $1,048,422.00 100% • Operating Expenses $ 613,633.00 58.5% • Pension Contribution -Relief Assn. $133,500.00 12.7% • Building Rental, Lease, Debt Service $ 301,289 28.7% ~Operafing Expenses (from abo~°e) $ 613,633.00 58.5% • Salaries for all Staff (all inclusive) $ 336,179.00 32.1% • Operations and Supplies $ 200,267.00 19.1 • Capital Outlay $ 77,187.00 7.36% Salaries for Staff inforitlatioii: • Firefighter response hours 10,000 -12,000 per year @ $8 per hour = $95,280.00 • Firefighter in-house training hours 2800 -3200 per year @ $4 per hour = $12,600.00 • Firefighter station maintenance hours 1480 per year @ $10 per hour = $14,800 • Firefighter meetings, PR events, other hours 1600 per year @ $0 per hour = $0 • Fire Officer Pay (refer to list for details) _ $16,500 July 23, 2008 co ~n c~ rn ~r o O d" ~ ~ d7 N ~, ~--- tf~ O N N f` (~ O Q IN N N O M ~ N U N ~ O ti 00 c0 ~ d' ~ M~ ~ M N M M N O Q (` M N O CO O N (~ N r- ~.f~ O r M CO M 00 ~ M M 00 d7 ~ ~ N O F- ~t CO ~ GO N N O ~ Q CO ~ ~t N ~ N ~ CD ~ 00 N U ~ O ~ w d7 o 0o ~ M o0 CO r- 0o rn t~ o0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ z W ~ N r- M ~ d' z ~ ¢ d' t` W U O ~ ~ Q WZ ~t r M ~ rn ° o~ ti~ o O w f-- ~ O z W ~ ~ c'~ d' d' M O m Q Q M r f~ M `- ~ U H W ~ ti ~ ~ W N N N 0 tS') CD Q ~ ~ Q cD N 07 'd ~ m L U Q W m ~' O ~ Z ~ O ~ O~QWC~~ wwz~zz zz~~~o ~ ~ O u~ cn ~ 0 0 N N ti cfl t~ o oI r~ c~ oo c~ oo r r7 O O N cri CO O tf) ~ t1~ r lf~ N d' Cfl r- Cfl N O ~' c'7 00 Cfl d' ~ ~ O ~i' tom- r7 d' (~ ~ N T- 00 00 r O N r tf~ r U C~ Z I- o o ~ o 0 U rn d- o c~ c~ N ch ~ O O f` c'7 N T- ~ ~ ~ N r Lf) O Z _ ~ Z O U x x x x x ~ Q = W cn U W ch c~ N N c~ c~ c~ N N N Y W O O d' d' d' rt d' ~ O O O O O ~~ m ~ r ~- r r r W Z t` I- ~ 0 ~ ~ o ~ O = N ~ ~ ~ U W `t ~ ~ >' W ~ U W Q W U Q ~ ~ rn~ OF-~~ ~ m ~fa- p~ °~j ZO~~ o F- Z~ OQ O J z l.L -- O (n O Q ~ ~- W p QQH ~ ~ - J U HH W W C~O ~ Z Z m W W W ~W ¢ o Z Z _ O~~ ~ o O ~ ~ O U ~ U ~ N ~ ~ ~ c+~ N N O O r \° 0 0 0 r O O 0 0 N_ ~' N ti 00 ~ M t~ I` o ~n d- ~ o ~ d- ~ rn ~ ti ~ ~ ~ O r r I~ O O O I 0 ~ ~ 0 N t1' ~ ~ ~ O O CO d' 0 ~ O _ I~ I~ ~ M ~ ~ N N 00 d7 O ( ti ~ N M O O ~ N N lf~ 00 ~ ~ Z ~ ~ U M N N ~- N ~- ~ O O I~ O d' O ~ LJJm M I ~~ I~ N 0O~- N O O M ~- ~ >~ O N N ~ O ~ C/) W Q ~U L1 1 LJ c~~n ' ma» ~C> O o N ° . .. ~' ~ O d ~ 07 ~ N N I~ N O O ~ ~ Q Q I ~ N N O t.C) ~ W U N ~ W Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d' M N 00 M ti ~ M tf7 t` tf') 00 O I~ ~ I ~ I~ M N O 0 O N N ~ ~ O M M M 00 ~ M M CO (~ 0 ~ N ° ~ CO ~ CO N N ~ ~ ( ~ ct' N cO- 000 ~ ~ N ~ tf~ O N U Q W m a~ a p~ ~ ~f - i a O ~ ~ ~- c zz ~ ~ zz _~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z 00 O O N 1 N ti W U Z Q Q m Z W W W W _~ LL W Q N cf' M M M M M M I~ f` M N N M M I~ ti M N N M N f~ t~ N 00 N d0 O O O O d' O ~ r ~ ~- ~ O 07 ~ ~ ~ ~ rn 0 0 Q O 0 N ~' Z Q W U Z Q J Oa0 (n N W ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ W W W U ~ m Z = Z Z ~ to ~ W W W ~ W U ~ ^ 4 W X W Z Z CD ~ W 0 W ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ W = Z Q 00 00 M ~ J O O ~ O O F- Q N N O ~ W ~ p p p W ~ W Q Q ° U Q o ° ~ ~ N ~ ~ Cn W W W Q J d M O O N N ti FIRE DEPARTMENT 222-42260 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 CODE ACTUAL ACTUAL APPROVED REQUESTED PROPOSED 101 FULL TIME SALARIES 105,985 112,790 118,905 127,081 127,081 6.88% 103 SALARIES, TEMP. 0 0 0 4,358 4,358 170 OFFICERS PAY 0 4,200 16,400 18,000 16,500 0.61% 180 DRILL PAY 12,945 9,350 12,600 12,600 12,600 0.00% 185 MAINTENANCE PAY 11,222 12,008 14,800 15,400 14,800 0.00% 190 MONTHLY SALARIES 103,960 98,402 92,000 95,280 95,280 3.57% 121 FICA/PERA 22,519 23,811 27,379 30,767 30,606 11.79% 131 HOSP/DENTAL 14,805 16,844 16,963 18,517 18,517 9.17% 134 LIFE INS./DISABILITY 511 543 578 615 615 6.36% 135 POST RETIREMENT 2,082 3,339 4,756 5,083 5,083 6.88% 151 WORKER'S COMP. INS. 10,478 10,750 12,422 13,540 13,540 9.00% 200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,434 2,816 2,500 2,700 2,500 0.00% 202 COPY MACHINE & FEES 695 338 800 840 840 5.00% 205 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 1,274 791 900 1,000 900 0.00% 208 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES 0 94 800 860 800 0.00% 210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 25,807 27,377 21,000 24,200 21,000 0.00% 212 MOTOR FUELS 7,338 7,479 7,500 9,000 9,000 20.00% 216 CLEANING SUPPLIES 1,263 500 900 925 900 0.00% 217 FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 1,639 1,562 1,500 1,700 1,500 0.00% 219 SAFETY SUPPLIES 7,973 4,391 5,200 6,200 5,400 3.85% 300 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,299 4,465 3,600 3,600 3,600 0.00% 301 AUDIT/FINANCIAL 3,742 2,866 3,850 3,900 3,900 1.31% 305 MEDICAL SERVICES 4,598 6,716 3,200 3,200 3,200 0.00% 307 ADMIN SUPPORT & OVERHEAD 12,530 13,160 13,814 14,505 14,505 5.00% 7/24/2008 FIRE DEPARTMENT 222-42260 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 CODE ACTUAL ACTUAL PROPOSED REQUESTED PROPOSED 308 BUILDING/FIRE INSPECTIONS 14,103 8,153 4,600 4,750 4,750 3.26% 321 TELEPHONE 3,903 3,369 4,200 4,500 4,500 7.14% 322 POSTAGE 865 581 800 850 800 0.00% 325 PAGERS -FIRE DEPT. 4,443 10,772 5,000 5,000 5,000 0.00% 331 USE OF PERSONAL AUTO 94 0 360 425 400 11.11% 350 PRINTING 331 727 750 800 750 0.00% 361 GEN. LIABILITY INS. 17,392 18,055 20,116 21,122 21,122 5.00% 381 ELECTRICITY 12,058 12,860 12,000 12,400 12,000 0.00% 383 GAS 5,712 6,755 9,200 9,400 9,400 2.17% 384 GARBAGE 1,140 1,197 1,400 1,450 1,400 0.00% 401 BUILDING REPAIRS 1,771 4,040 2,500 3,000 3,000 20.00% 402 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 0 2,385 2,000 2,500 2,500 25.00% 409 OTHER EQUIP. REPAIR 28,858 32,291 19,200 19,800 19,200 0.00% 412 BUILDING RENTAL 283,500 289,160 290,840 301,289 301,289 3.59% 418 RENTALS/RADIO 13,094 12,368 13,800 13,800 13,800 0.00% 430 MISCELLANEOUS 5,594 1,263 3,600 3,760 3,600 0.00% 431 MEETING EXPENSES 461 286 360 400 400 11.11% 433 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 4,450 4,122 3,720 3,800 3,720 0.00% 434 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 21,755 16,800 20,400 20,400 20,400 0.00% 440 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 0 0 1,080 1,080 1,080 460 JANITORIAL SERVICES 7,341 9,494 4,400 10,000 4,400 0.00% 500 CAPITAL OUTLAY 80,686 110,054 12,280 17,900 0 -100.00% 580 FIRE TRUCK REPLACEMENT 0 0 47,000 50,000 47,000 0.00% 600 CAPITAL LEASE - SCABA EQUIP 0 0 16,200 18,187 18,187 12.27% 5xx CAPITAL EQUIPMENT RESERVE 3,000 3,000 5XX FACILITY RESERVE 6,000 6,000 620 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL $4 ~ $7~4 ~Z2~ 4.16% TOTAL EXCL CAPITAL EXP/RESERV 7$~` `~~.4 Z $42~_ 4 $~ ~~ 4.71% 7!24/2008 N C~ Q w 0 0 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, bn ~ ~ ~ ~ Cn b9 C~ ~ ~"i ~ O ~ 0o i O O ~ O'' ~ O ~ O N ~ ~ ~ bA O ~ U ~ ~ ~ M O ~,, ~ ~ . O O . ~ 'd ~ y N ~ ~ ~'' ~ M ~ 30- ~ ~ ~ 4"' ¢~ ~ ~ ~ O N N ..--i ,-~ }-. ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~O ~ O ~ ~" ~ ~' ~ ~,~ 'O ~ O ~ U ~ 69~~ ~ ~ ~ p O ,~,,, ~ ~ ~ m ~ , ''., ~ O '~ ~ ~ O Fig • .~ n ~ ~ c~3 O t~q ~ ~ •y ¢, O "" a> ~ ~ ~ cd O p ~ c ~ ~ • OO ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O . O ~ `+"' b A " ~ N U ~ ~ O ~ U '~ U H N ~ O O N ~ ~ x ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ U N ~ ~ : O ~ ~ O ~ ~ U ~ ^~ O W Q" U ~ N U ~ N 5~g U . .~ C~ ~ •~ i"' v .~ ~ Y~I ~" ~" C~ ~ O O ~ b A b A ~ b A b q b A b A c~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ a a a w a a ~ a 0 V bA a ~+-~ ~ •~ o U ,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ O ~ O ~' ~' • '~ ~ ., O 4: ~ ~ U ~ O d' bA ^ O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ R3 ~" v ~ Ri N ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ o ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~. o o i ~ ° '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ s ., '-, .... ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ s"' ~' N cd a O i; ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° r ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ °j •. ~ u n ~ , ~ ° ~' .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~'~ ~ Ey ~ o ~ W °-~ ~ ~.~~ Aa w r~~ ~ C/~ a • ~ • s • ~ (~ s e • • N ~' a j r-+ 3-~ ~ N ~ ,-~ O O ~ N ~ s-~ ai O ~' ', ~ ~ ~ ~ cOd .~ ~ ai ~." ~ N iC U N O ~"'' U N U O N ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ sU. ~ ~ U ~ ~ Ste-' U O yU-+ .,., 'U /~ ~ F'" '~ UO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '.y N ~ bA ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ -i~+ ? 3 ~ ~~,,"' ~ ~ r0.' ~ }~},..~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ vii ' b4 ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~~-+ ~ cd ~ U > . ~ ~ ~ U `~ s-• c~ tom, ~ .O ~', 'b ~" v~ •~ ~ ~ `~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~n ~ ~ o ~ w a a a a w a a a w v~a ~n .~ U O '-' t3, U y ~ N := p ~ ~ «3 c~ O ,~ '.-~ ~ ~ N ~ 5g ~ ~ ~ ,~ b4 I U 'd -+-+ CrS U U s-, ~ v~ .~' .-. O rn U ~ N O bA ,~ D ' U ~ " U ~ N Q U ~ 69 ~++ O ~ ~ ~ " ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O • O , ~'" b4 bA O c ~ ,~ 6R O O O U ~ cd U N U ~+ O cd "O O ~ , .,p ~ "C3 Fr },,, O . ~" • Qr ~; O N v' U~,~ U I"-' U~ O +-' 0'~ 'O '~ vUi C N 'S". s., d 0 ~ v~ .-. c ~ .'. O ~ O ~ O v, '~ O ~ ~ c~"'~ ~ O N ' r ~ ~ ~, Nom,, '~ O ,~ a" ~ ~ ~ 4-+ .-, O ~ ~ ~' }, 'C N ~ ~ U ~ U , ~ O U N •~ ~n ~ U '~ ~ U ~ U ~+ U 'C ~ O bA w 4; '! O ~ .~ .~ U ~ t . W U U cd ~ ~ ,~ O .~ .~ ~ U ~' ~, s-' .~ . ~ ~ c~ ~ U O ~ 0 0 ~ U cC U ~ cd O ~ ~ N ~ Qom., s,._, O ~--~ «i 4-~ ~ N N ~i r"O-+ ~"" •~+ U y,0 ~ Q, O U O 'd ,~ U ~ "" ~ O ,~ U U 69 cC 'O t~ Q' ~ ! a ! d' • • ~ U • c~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952).474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Larry Brown, Acting .City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer -- DATE: July 24, 2008 RE: Water Meter Replacement Project Update Attached is a map showing the progression of radio read water meter installations. To date three sections of the water system have been changed. 691 out of 1,366 meters have been changed out accounting for 50%. Staff has identified one of the last two sections for replacement to correspond with the 2008 operating budget. Staff has budgeted $75,000.00, as part of the 2008 operating budget, to continue the radio read water meter replacement project. Projecting the cost of meters and installation to account for inflation the next group will include approximately 287 meters. If Council directs staff to continue with the radio read water meter replacement, quotes will be procured for the August 11 City Council meeting. Recommendation Staff recommends Council provide direction to staff to continue with the replacement as budgeted for in the 2008 operating budget. 4g vs :®«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 3 4 li 8 MAP UPDATE JULY. 2008 ~~~ ~ _° ;° (Designaies Private Road) ' w ~' ~ ~ S __ - tee= aEw ~~ - w (SPExCEA W U 't~ caaerx ? vl o ap 9~ I° 3 3m ~~ F ,____ - ~." T ~'y n~`M .sY M,aao S ~ W w (/ ~ ~ ~,, / d ~;, .~ ! ~a Uk < -i .~, ,. s ,,~ ~m Seaa~ ~"S _ z' ~ER~, ~'~/ "IwoExo ~ Bo~S LAKE MINNETONKA ~ ~ s" a~~~ r 'g~ I ra`~ III ~=a~ ' a GIDEON'S BAY N res i =g~„ I ewW eo II `` ~' m ~' ~ ~ o u ~ re qep' '~ ~ ~~ Few EXCELSIOR ST ALBANS 8AY ~`~~ iw AioSE xEw cnnnu oucK a a ~ ~ R BAY ~ w ~ ~. gv e Fa4[vbfA A° ¢ nee N ISEAND `~" QOO 1 i ( Q $ & aou r B 8. `5 w rsEaNO ~ ~/ s I h N°p! uErA9cp ~ ~ ~ x~ ... ~ b Mrg~ ~ A ... ~ O O / F 6 ~ v I ~ E -E7 C ii 9 Ea ~i°^ 0 O ~ .s,_ c ~ o Rr,ct LAKE (~ a°lyCw FixE ~ a° ~ o'VP `~ " - 9y o w ~-'~µrA ~O~ ~~, s° ¢ V a.orsmx a° y ~: ~~ I N 7 Z ,°~ J I s" l unRSA PgxiC nR6°A GtLEx SE W a wa k ~ 0.Pw .. y PgNIE CA0.E R0 w ~ ~ ' k MINNETONKA P naa°oE Ao 'eew° caKrt [" ~ sux IL'_11 esnN NO. rw ~ o,u ~ ~~~ ~sTAtf N uo ~ ~ W C9 ~ e ~ ~/ naEEx eArx (1~ F. s \ ~ d~¢ ~~ CRI£iAIE ~4 b ., ~~ fPa ~s ~\ Pao °° Q Z ~ P c. PE PPS 0 '~ ®~ ' ~,~ s""rMrow,r aoAO I '~ v~ I ~ ~w ~ ~p O ~ "°o~ ',,. a g ~ ewe ,SQ ~ su MTOmu Ro Y ~~ EcHua Eaex ire° n ~ a ~ ~ - ~ ~ >~( IpIWE apxT JI~I dp ~ EIAAwAEAFr MART Vp _ y ~~ a o FREEMax pal ago- LAKE _ _._.. GALPIN CHRISiIdAS S O ' a Cx x n ~ .~~K ~ z ~ "' 1 LAKE ~'H~ p i = ~ ~ n Ao ~ ~' o~ ~ ~"rc ~ ;~ ~ ~'~ LAKE ~w ~ 2. ~ I ~ OWtMA ~ ~~~ RO ~pt~ - ~ ~ IOetPN LQ iSi ~~ ~~ _ L ~- _.-. ~ [~~ .~M \•^~ eEUEAr cm..aa. ~~" a 4w ~ rcu°rrsiowE a `L LL wta. e G stK ~' E5. F M1R[C i ~ .. m IJ EM1'- °a [A L~ °. SrAerw a~ ~ [ Wn5 ~~~ SaFfiwa ~ z ~r.~~ acu ~ 3 YaRISCY / s"" a *vQry ...._ ~ 1 er ~ .~S _J c° x~[~ ~. ~ STATE NwT N^~ ^ ~~ ~r, o /1 G' vnm~rz g~P[ s~ 7. Q a ~J LJ~~~" P~ T y - v ainp ST GIHMGRT 6]N° SI w SiA7E HWY ND 7 - xMAV U d I. CHESTNUT iER. Q LAKE 2. WHITNEY CIR. ~ - 3. ELBERT PL. I Q 4. McNINLEY PL. 5. CHESTNUT Ci_ ~ ,r, fi. McKINLEY CT. W (~ 7. M[KINLEY CIR, ~', ~ W W O I U ~ Q d J 20G7 STREETS IN REPLACEMENT AREA d MAILING 1 AND 2 ~ - 2008 STREETS IN REPLACEMENT AREA i- MAILING 3 2008 STREETS IN REPLACEMENT AREA ~ ~~ PHASE 2 I MAILING 4 cnY or sn°rew°oa 'i Oepts o! Public Works ono Engineering 5755 Country GINb Rd I Shorewood. Mn 553}1 952.474.3236 ~~I I' ~ WATER METER RADIO READ REPLACEMENT AND MAILING PLAN ~ ^'ll II ~ CITY PROJECT N0. 07 - 04 SHEET 1 OF 1 I SHOR~WOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 24 July 2008 RE: Deer Management Program - 2008 FILE NO. 405(Deer Management 08) Last year's Deer Management Program was by all accounts considered quite successful. There appears to be consensus by the Council that the program should be continued in 2008. Staff suggests that the program be operated the same as last year with a couple of recommendations that might increase the number of deer removed. Our recommendations are based on comments and suggestions from Bob Whiting, President of Metro Bowhunters Resource, Inc.. • Last year the program started later than what would be ideal. By the time the City decided to initiate the program and formalize. the necessary paperwork, the hunt did not take place until the middle of October. We recommend that the hunt be moved up this year to the last week in September, in order to take advantage of leaf-on conditions. • Three to four weekends will be scheduled with approximately three to four weeks separating the efforts. • Last year we restricted the early hunts to antlerless deer. Participants were allowed to take antlered deer in the later hunts. This year, to improve the success rate, we suggest that either gender deer be allowed to be taken throughout the hunts. • We have compiled a list of property owners who want their properties hunted. Site selected will again be scrutinized for suitability. For example, someone with aone-acre lot, maybe advised to get their adjoining neighbors to agree with the location. We are trying to avoid instances where a wounded deer ends up on someone's private property who does not want it there. ~~' .a f®M® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Deer Management Program 2008 24 July 2008 • Notification of surrounding property owners will be done again this year, a little more in advance of the hunt. If agreeable, staff will prepare the contract for services for Council's approval at its 11 August meeting. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Bryan Litsey -2- ( ITY Ul' SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 July 2008 RE: Administrative Code Enforcement -Response to Council Issues FILE NO.: 405(Admin Enf) At the 23 June City Council Work Session, staff initiated a discussion on administrative code enforcement. The Council had a number of questions and directed staff to research the topic further. Issues raised by the Council are found in the minutes of the work session and are summarized as follows: • How are the attorneys that serve as hearing officers selected? • What is the cost of conducting a "local court" (e.g. hearing officer, recording secretary, etc.)? • To what types of code violations might administrative enforcement apply? • Are there examples of cases where administrative enforcement did not work? • Concern of Rights of Violators (Due Process?) • What is the City's legal exposure? For insight into these issues, Shorewood Staff interviewed several individuals involved with administrative code enforcement in three other cities, including the Community Development Director for Minnetonka, a City Attorney for the. City of Bloomington, and a planning consultant who handles code enforcement for the City of Otsego. Selection of Hearing Officers. Minnetonka maintains a pool of lawyers from which - hearing officers are randomly drawn. Otsego uses one lawyer. Bloomington maintains arrangements with two lawyers outside of their office (despite having an in-house legal department), with most of the work being done by one of them. F" ~ ..:~ r 'S T®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Ike: Administrative Enforcement 23 July 2008 Cost of Local Court. It is anticipated that the Hearing Officer and any recording secretary time would be reimbursed through a system of fines imposed for violations. In Bloomington's case, they pay $75-100 per hour for the Hearing Officer, with an average case, including prep time, costing approximately $400. Application to Various Code Sections. Otsego has not gone to District Court over nuisance or zoning violations in several years, according to their planning consultant. Minnetonka issued approximately 200 citations last year, many of which had to do with long grass and property maintenance issues. Bloomington issued only 22 citations last year, which is interesting considering the broad range of code provisions to which the enforcement process applies (see Exhibit A). Staff believes that most, if not all, violations of Chapter 501 (Unhealthy Substances/Nuisances) could start with administrative enforcement. Many zoning violations could also be subject to administrative enforcement/citations, not the least of which would be sign violations. Three very pertinent cases have come up even since our discussion in June -all involving rental housing. In all three cases, landlords had failed to obtain the required license for their rental units. The only recourse we have at present for either failure to obtain a license, or failure to comply with a correction order is to advise the owner that the unit can not be rented, resulting in eviction of the tenant, or pursuing the violator through the District Court system. It is expected that an administrative citation would trigger a quicker, and likely more acceptable response, since it would be more cost effective to apply for a license and correct deficiencies than to pay a series of fines. Where Administrative Enforcement Has Not Worked. The city representatives we spoke with were quite satisfied with the outcome of administrative enforcement. Otsego mentioned only one instance that has not been successful. A landowner had allowed his property to achieve "dump" status and continuously failed to comply, despite fines levied by the City. Otsego is currently exploring further legal action or possibly initiating its own cleanup, with costs being assessed to the violator. Out of the 22 cases cited in Bloomington last year, only two ended up in District Court. One of these was a very chronic scofflaw, who is being sentenced this week. The Bloomington Attorney noted that the District Court is much more cooperative with cities that have taken the trouble to go through an administrative process. She feels that judges have come around to appreciating this process rather than resenting it as they did in the earlier years. Rights of the Violator. Staff feels that this was answered at the previous meeting, it is worth noting that a violator has options within and beyond the administrative enforcement process. First, he/she has a right to appear before the City Council. The Hearing Officer, while appointed and hired by the City, is independent, not an employee of the City. Ultimately, if the violator is not satisfied with the local process, he/she can still go through the District Court system. -2- Memorandum Re: Administrative Enforcement 23 July 2008 Cites ag 1 Risk. The City Attorney will address this at the work session on Monday night. The more staff researches the administrative code enforcement process, the more we are convinced that this is a reasonable, cost effective and expeditious way to handle City Code violations. One item that staff continues to explore is a proposed schedule of fines to be associated with the enforcement. These will be discussed at the work session on Monday night. Cc: Tim Keane Larry Brown Patti Helgesen Pamela Helling Joe Pazandak -3- Bloomington City Code Chapter 1 page 1 Page 5 of 7 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES. A violation of the following provisions of the City Code shall be an admini: offense that may be subject to the administrative mediation and hearing process Article. (1) Chapter 6, Article II, Fire Prevention Code; (2) Chapter 6, Article III, Fires and False Alarms; (3) Chapter 6, Article IV, Open Burning Restrictions; (4) Chapter 8, Article II, Vehicle Regulations, Division A. Storage of Abandon Inoperative Vehicles as Public Nuisances; (5) Chapter 8, Article III, Parking, Division A., Parking on Private Property; (6) Chapter 9, Article I, Public Nuisances Affecting Health; (7) Chapter 10, Article II, Refuse; (8) Chapter 10, Article III, Litter; (9) Chapter 10, Article IV, Noise Code; (10) Chapter 10, Article VI, Weeds; (11) Chapter 10, Article VII, Recycling; (12) Chapter 10, Article VIII, Phosphorus Fertilizer; (13) Chapter 11, Article II, Wastewater; (14) Chapter 12, Article II, Prohibited Conduct, Division A. Public Nuisances; (15) Chapter 12, Article II, Prohibited Conduct, Division B. Trespassing; (16) Chapter 12, Article II, Prohibited Conduct, Division C. Conduct or Events a Public Nuisance; (17) Chapter 12, Article II, Prohibited Conduct, Division E. Improper Display of Oriented Materials; (18) Chapter 12, Article 11, Prohibited Conduct, Division H. Firearms, Weapon Weapons; (19) Chapter 12, Article II, Prohibited Conduct, Division N. Graffiti; (20) Chapter 12, Article II, Prohibited Conduct, Division O. Smoking; (21) Chapter 14, Article II, Public Entertainment Licenses and Regulations; (22) Chapter 14, Article III, Animal Licenses and Regulations, Division A. Dog: (23) Chapter 14, Article III, Animal Licenses and Regulations, Division B. Rabi (24) Chapter 14, Article III, Animal Licenses and Regulations, Division C. Anirr (25) Chapter 14, Article III, Animal Licenses and Regulations, Division D. Anirr (26) Chapter 14, Article III, Animal Licenses and Regulations, Division E. Anirr Loose; (27) Chapter 14, Article III, Animal Licenses and Regulations, Division F. Wild (28) Chapter 14, Article III, Animal Licenses and Regulations, Division H. Anirr Prohibitions; (29) Chapter 14, Article IV, Business Licenses and Regulations; (30) Chapter 14, Article V, Food Licenses and Regulations; Exhibit A http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us./code/Code 1_1.html Bloomington City Code Chapter 1 page 1 Page 6 of 7 (31) Chapter 14, Article VI, Housing Licenses and Regulations; (32) Chapter 14, Article VII, Sign Permits and Licenses; (33) Chapter 15, Article I, Building Code; (34) Chapter 15, Article VI, Swimming Pools; (35) Chapter 15, Article VIII, Plumbing, Division C. Individual Sewage Treatmei (36) Chapter 15, Article VIII, Plumbing, Division D. Wells; (37) Chapter 17, Article II, Street Use Restrictions; (38) Chapter 18, Trees; (39) Chapter 19, Article II, Administration and Procedure; (40) Chapter 19, Article IV, District Regulations; (41) Chapter 19, Article V, Performance Standards; (42) Chapter 19, Article VIII, Anti-Blight Regulations; (43) Chapter 19, Article IX, Shore Area Regulations; (44) Chapter 19, Article X, Sign Regulations (45) Chapter 21, Article II, Districts and Uses; (46) Chapter 21, Article III, Development Standards. (Added by Ord. No. 99-32, 10-4-99; Amended by Ord. No. 2006-13, 4-17-2006; 2007-36, 10-22-2007) Section 1.12. ORDERS TO CORRECT; ADMINISTRATI CITATIONS. Upon the reasonable belief that an administrative offense detailed in Sect this Article has occurred, the City officials listed in Section 1.06 of this Chapter s on the violator an order to correct the violation. If compliance is not achieved by order to correct, the official is authorized to issue an administrative citation purse Article of the City Code. An administrative citation shall be presented in person the person responsible for the violation, as well as the owner of the property on violation occurred, if not the same person. The citation shall state the date, time of the offense, the name of the official issuing the citation, the amount of the sch fine, and the manner for paying the fine or appealing the citation by requesting and hearing. (Added by Ord. No. 99-32, 10-4-99; Amended by Ord. No. 2007-36, 10-22-2007 Section 1.13. CIVIL FINES. The administrative offenses detailed in Section 1.11 may be subject to a c The amount of a civil fine may not exceed the amount of the maximum fine allov ordinance violation had been prosecuted as a misdemeanor. In the case of civil imposed for excessive nuisance service calls pursuant to Section 12.15 of this C the civil fine may not exceed the actual costs of providing excess law enforceme http://www. ci.bloomington.mn.us./code/Code 1_l .html 7/24/2008