Loading...
2011.03.30 Work Session Packet=177*1 11 IN 17 Ve i , *T 7:00 p.m. Community Room Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter, the Work Session of the Crystal City Council was held at p.m. on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 in Conference Room A located at 4141 Douglas Drive, Crystal, Minnesota. I. Attendance Council members Bowman Moore Selton Anderson Budziszewski Hoffmann Deshler Staff Norris Therres Mathisen Banick 11. Agenda The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items: 1. Placement of sidewalk on Sumter Ave (Phase 11 Street Project) 2. Sod -watering financial assistance for properties within street reconstruction projects 3. Amendments to West Metro Fire -Relief District Joint Powers Agreement 4. Amendment to City Code regarding residential urban chicken keeping 5. Complaint about deer in the city 6. City Council Meeting Schedule — moving regular April 19 meeting in observance of the Passover holiday III. Adjournment GACity ClerMouncilMork sessions\wsagenda-3.30.1 1.doc The work session adjourned at p.m. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT C Inny Phase 11 Sumter Avenue Sidewalk Proj #2010-11 FROM: Tom Mathisen, Public Works Director & City, Engineer TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for March 30 City Council Work Session) DATE: March 25, 2011 RE: Discussion of Approved Sidewalk — Ease Side of Sumter Avenue On February 1, 2011, the Council adopted a resolution approving the plans and specifications and advertisement for bids for the Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction Project. The plans included a sidewalk on the east side of Sumter Avenue. One Sumter Avenue resident attended the meeting and expressed opposition to the sidewalk on the east side, stating it would be better on the west side along with the parking on the west side. At a subsequent council meeting several other residents appear to also express opposition and present a petition (copy attached) to not have a sidewalk on their east side of Sumter Avenue. Concern was also expressed about having the parking on the east side. Concern focused on the residents of apartments on the New Hope side and how they might use the sidewalk and parking and resulting disruptions on the east side of Sumter Avenue. See attached aerial photo. The Council decided to revisit the sidewalk issue at a subsequent work session. A request from the Police Department for criminal activity and resident complaints on this portion of Sumter did not reveal any number of complaints that would not by typical for a residential neighborhood. Most of the police activity was focused on one property on the south end of Sumter closer to Bass Lake Road. HISTORY Attached are copies of the relevant documents relating to the designation of Sumter as a 32 -foot wide State Aid street, with parking on only one side and a proposed sidewalk the east side. The history dates back to the Welcome Park Phase 10 project built in 2009. This section of Sumter Avenue was included in the project due to the extremely deteriorated condition of the road. Sumter residents and property owners were notified in November of 2008 regarding the proposed State Aid and related 32 -foot width and parking on one side only designation. A meeting was held on for the Sumter Avenue residents only on December 18, 2008, to discuss the implications of State Aid designation and a proposed sidewalk to be built in the future. Unfortunately, no one attended the meeting. On December 23, 2008 a public open house meeting notice was sent announcing the January 15, 2009 open house. Issues relating to Sumter Avenue, State Aid, and a proposed future sidewalk were discussed. The next contact with Sumter residents was a November 24,'2010 notice stating the Phase 11 Project had been ordered and there would be a meeting of Sumter and 58th Avenue residents on December 9, 2010, to discuss implications of proposed State Aid Designation, no parking, and a proposed sidewalk. Four property owners attended, three from 58th Avenue, and one from Sumter Avenue. The Sumter resident was very much in favor of the sidewalk citing her small children. The Sumter residents then received a December 28, 2010 notice announcing the January 13, 2011 Phase 11 open house and formal presentation at which sidewalks were discussed. The final Sumter notice dated January 25, announced the Tuesday February 1 Council meeting to approve the final plans and specifications which included a sidewalk on the east side of Sumter. I The proposed sidewalk on the east side of Sumter Avenue is consistent with the City's policy of establishing a city wide sidewalk network on one side of all State Aid routes. The west side of Sumter Avenue is in the City of New Hope. The New Hope resolutions designating Sumter Avenue as State Aid, and banning parking on the west side of Sumter Avenue are attached. Since the opposition for the sidewalk on the east side, New Hope has been approached regarding moving the sidewalk to the west side. The response was there is no interest in the foreseeable future in a sidewalk. The reasons cited were the long term maintenance costs, especially due to the retaining walls that would be necessary to install the sidewalk. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council discuss the merits of the sidewalk on the east side of Sumter Avenue which is necessary to complete what would become the only continuous sidewalk through the Broadway Park neighborhood. Res tfully sub * to Thomas A. Mathisen City Engineer kpubworks/projects/phasel 1/stateaid/Sumtersidewa[kMarchwrksesmem �� OrU[b&�- ^ Or ��°/~/( �jD� J���(� ~�—t ^~ ^ `7/o 9~5 E'3—/P, b'B� Petition to change the council decision in regards to the State Aid Street on Sumter Av. North. We, the residents of Sumter Av. North, do not want the parking on the East side of the street nor do we want the sidewalk toimpede our property onthe east side nfSumter Av. To the City of Crystal, Residents ofSumter Av. North have come togetherbodiscuss the decision made onthe Feb. f^council meeting inregards tothe Sumter Av. north State Aid Street Project. Weagree that the sidewalk proposed to be built on the East side of Sumter ay. would be unsafe and not logical. As homeowners, vvedonot want tolose 5plus feet ofour property. Ashomeowners, m/edonot agree that parking on our side of the street would be safe. To have a sidewalk and parked cars would be unsafe for all of us who back upout ofour driveways onto Sumter Av. Further more, the sidewalk would attract several unsupervised children from area townhomes and apartments to loiter in front of our homes. There is more property available on the West side of Sumter to build a sidewalk without impeding on the home owners ofSumter Av. North. Parking on our side of the street along with a sidewalk would also increase Ahe amount of liter we already pick up due to littering from nearby children and pedestrians who walk the street. No Parking on the North side does not logical because all of the cars that do park on the street are mostly from the apartments. ,.We overall do not agree on the decision that was made on Feb. 15t at the City Council Meeting to put in a sidewalk on the East Side of Sumter and the decision to make the no Parking on the north side of Thank you for your consideration, The Residents ofCrystal onSumter ay. North Resident Name House Number Signature b J— sLi rA, a -Q Lo��4 4141 Douglas Drive North ® Crystal, MN 55422-1696 Telephone: (763) 531-1000 ® Fax: (763) 531-1188 Website: www.d.crystal.mmus TO: Property Owners and Residents along Sumter Avenue in the Phase 10 Welcome Park Street Reconstruction Project FROM: Tom Mathisen, Crystal City Engineer Aaron Ditzler, Project Manager DATE: November 12, 2008 RE: 2009 — Phase 10 Welcome Park Street Reconstruction Project City Project No.: 2008-10 SEH No.: CRYST 106110 After deliberation at the Public Improvement Hearing for the referenced project on Thursday, November 6, 2008, the City Council unanimously passed a motion to order the preparation of plans needed to bid the project. The plans will be complete in time to open bids in early spring 2009. Now that the motion is approved, the proposed special assessments to your property become "pending assessments." This is legal term and is only significant if you sell your home prior to the time the assessments are levied. The earliest the levy would take place is April 2009. Assessments may be paid in full or assessed to your property taxes for 15 years beginriing in 2010, with an interest rate of approximately 6.0%. Between now and April, a home seller would have to escrow one and one half to two times the pending assessment amount at the time of closing. Once the assessment is levied, the escrow company would return any surplus to the seller. This is all according to state statute and is not under control of the City. Information regarding the amount of the pending assessment for your particular property can be obtained by calling Gail Van Ki-evelen at the City of Crystal at 763.53 1. 1118. The project includes the following: 2. The construction of Sumter Avenue in brULIUII. lillb lo aEL1uAniiaL-- Crystal's new Comprehensive (MSA) street network at some feet wide and parking would b occur, as part ooperation with the City of New I etwiderthan the existing street. -s Sumter Avenue to be added to t] ie future. If this were to hap2enJ on one side only. This potential N/. Lie Phase 10 moi ect. The Crystal side residents on Sumter Avenue will be invited to a special meet to a 32 -foot wide street [ ne reason is ine uiEy or Uity's Municipal State Ai street would have to be 32 i desianation chanae, were any questions about the Comprehensive Plan and what an ivi-3,ft street is dii possible designation at some point in the future would work. The repair of existing City standard B618 concrete curb and gutter as necessary. The extension of the storm sewer collection system as necessary. The reconstruction of storm sewer trunk pipes that are deteriorating as necessary. in December to answer I how the process for Property Owners and Resident Memorandum November 12, 2008 Page 2 5. The installation of a drain the system along the edge of the street on an as needed basis where practical and feasible to intercept ground water and serve as an outlet for private sump pump systems. 6. The construction of rain gardens in the boulevards of homeowners, on an as requested basis where practical and feasible. 7. An offer from the City to Crystal property owners in the Phase 10 area, at an additional cost and using the street contactor's forces, both private sanitary sewer service repair and private driveway replacement in coordination with the street reconstruction work. The preparation of final plans and specifications begins with the collection of field data. During the week of November 100', survey crews will begin their work in the area. The surveyors work occasionally requires them to walk onto the boulevard and front and back yards to obtain ground elevations and establish location of property corners, trees, fences, driveways, and the like. This information is important because it is used to customize the design to fit the existing conditions. Additionally, driveways have been photographed in the project area. Depending upon the weather, the survey work may take up to five weeks to complete. Furthermore, crews from CenterPoint Energy will reconstruct gas mains and services in the project area beginning in April 2009. A copy of the questionnaire is enclosed to all properties that did not return their questionnaire that was sent with the kickoff newsletter dated June 26, 2008. Your input is important. The results from the questionnaire are used to determine the design of various improvements and to establish a list of people to be contacted with details on sanitary sewer service repair and driveway replacement. If you received a questionnaire with this memo, please complete and return it ASAP. Doing so will prevent you from being missed for these or other- issues. Many of you may be wondering what is coming next. The design of the project will be substantially complete in January 2009. During design, City staff will contact residents whose property is impacted more than usual by the project. Feasible solutions will be explored jointly to minimize such impacts. In mid January 2009, there will be an open house to show you how the design may impact your property and the immediate neighborhood. It will also allow you to give us additional information on your specific concerns and desires so they can be considered in the final plan. Additionally, an open house will be held in early January 2009 to describe rain garden design features and answer the most commonly asked questions for property owners and residents interested in having a rain garden installed in the City -owned boulevard in front of their home. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Ditzler at SEH by telephone or e-mail at 952.912.2624 (aditzler(ci)�sehinc.com) or Mick Cyert at the Crystal Engineering Department at 763.531.1161 (mick.cyert@ci.castal.nm.us). Enclosure p'\ae\c\cn•stU 0G110\1gen1\)d-corn\resident mailing\memo follow pih\ph 10 memo wmounce follow sumtec dot 4141 Douglas Drive North - Crystal, MN 55422-1696 Telephone: (763) 531-1000 - Fax: (763) 531-1188 Website: www.ci.crystal.mn.us TO: Property Owners and Residents Along Sumter Avenue in the 2009 — Phase 10 Welcome Park Street Reconstruction Project FROM: Aaron Ditzler, SEH Project Manager Tom Mathisen, Crystal City Engineer DATE: December 2, 2008 RE: Neighborhood Meeting on Thursday, December 18,2008,6:0012.m. Crystal City Hall Lower Level, 4141 Douglas Drive N. Please recall that after deliberation at the Public Improvement Hearing November 6, 2008, for the 2009 Street Reconstruction Project, the City Council passed a resolution to order the project and begin the fmal design. The project's design is now underway and will be complete in time for spring 2009 construction. The purpose of this memo is to inform/remind you of the following: The construction of Sumter Avenue in cooperation with the City of New HoRe to a 32 -foot wide street section. This is approximately two feet wider than the existing street. The reason is the City of Crystal's new Comprehensive Plan guides Sumter Avenue to be added to the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) street network at some point in the future. 2. MSA street reconstruction requires adherence to specific design and operation criteria. Sumter Avenue z:1 would have to be ')2 feet. wide and parking would be allowed on one side only. This potential MSA desiunation Mange, were it to occur, would not happen as part of the Phase 10 project. The final "details" decision on street reconstruction along Sumter Avenue will not be until after innut from the adioinina residents at the neighborhood meeting, and subs -eq We invite you to provide the input requested by the City Council on the Sumter Avenue portion of the Phase 10 street reconstruction project. This will be done at a special neighborhood meeting for residents that live adjacent to Sumter Avenue on Thursday evening, December 18, 2008. The meeting will include a review and discussion of the proposed improvement recommendations for Sumter Avenue and how the process for possible MSA designation at some point in the future might work. The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. and continue until approximately 6:45 p.m. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Aaron by telephone (952.912.2624), e- mail (aditzler@sehinc.com), Mick Cyert of Crystal's Engineering Department at 76' ).53 1. 1161 or nvck.c-vert(@,ci.gystal.m.n.us. p\aekc\mS1\106] I 0\)genJ\14-ccu\rmidtn1 mailisig\m n mlg\ph 10 m a mtg sumter.doc 4141 Douglas Drive North ® Crystal, MN 55422-1696 Telephone: (76.3) 531-1000 - Fax: (763) 531-1188 Website: www.ci.crystal.mn.us 12009 — PHASE 10 WELCOME PARK STREET RECONSTRUCTION #2008-10 THURSDAY, 6:00 p.m., DEC. 18, 2008 LOWER LEVEL COMMUNITY ROOM, CRYSTAL CITY HALL 1. INTRODUCTIONS, Tom Mathison, Crystal City Engineer 0 2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF MEETING, Tom M • Comprehensive Plan • Future addition to City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) street network 3. DRAFT DESIGN/COUNCIL ACTION, Aaron D. • Street width • Parkino, a Sidewalk 4. DISCUSSION/RESIDENT INPUT, Aaron D. & Tom M. © Street widths. • Which side for parking? ® Which side for sidewallcs?, • Other concerns. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION, Tom M. BATE: December 30, 2008 TO: Property Owners and Residents of both the 2009 - Phase 10 Welcome Park Street Reconstruction Project Area and Sumter Avenue FROM: City of Crystal and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. WHAT: Street Reconstruction Open House W -HEN: Thursday, January 15, 2009; 6:00 p.m to 8:30 p.m. ERE: Crystal City Hall 4141 Douglas Drive North You are cordially invited to Crystal City Hall to review the nearly complete design details for street reconstruction near your property and neighborhood. The meeting will begin in the lower level Community Room at 6:00 p.m. and continue until 8:30 p.m. Project team members, including city staff, will be available to answer your questions and to consider your ideas in refining the final design. The meeting will be informal so please come at your convenience. We are also interested in hearing from those of you who have questions about your sump pump service, driveway reconstruction, or sanitary sewer repair/replacement. For those interested, there will be a brief presentation and discussion period starting at 7:00 pm in the Council Chamber. The presentation will both describe design features that have changed since the last Open House held on October 23, 2008 and answer the most commonly asked questions about a street reconstruction project. In addition to answering your current questions, we hope the presentation will help you formulate new ones. Upon completion of the presentation, you are invited back to the Community Room for further discussion until the Open House ends at 8:30 p.m. The Crystal City Council will consider accepting the plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the project most likely at the February 3, 2009 meeting. We look forward to seeing you at the Open House. If you have any questions please contact the appropriate representative below: Aaron Ditzler Mick Cyert Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Crystal Engineering Dept. 952.912.2624 763.531.1161 aditzler@sehinc.com mick.cyert@ci.crystal.mn.us 2009 - Phase 10 Welcome Park P' nd Sumter Avenue Street Reconstruction ffii�OM� f 9 j m 11111, ANIM.;"fiI -s`'i. 4141 Douglas Drive North - Crystal, MN 55422-1696 Telephone: (763) 531-1000 - Fax: (763) 531-1188 Website: w-ww.ci.crystal.rnn.us TO: Property Owners and Residents adjacent to the following city streets that may be designated as MSA: ® 58'b Avenue – Sumter Avenue to West Broadway in the 2011– Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction Project ® Sumter Avenue – Bass Lake Road to 58'b Avenue FROM: Aaron Ditzler, SEH Project Manager I Tom Mathisen, Crystal City Engineer DATE: November 24, 2010 RE: Neiahborhood Meeting on Thursday, December 9, 2010, 6:45 p.m. Crystal City Hall Council Chambers, 4141 Douglas Drive N. 58'h Avenue in the 2011– Phase 11 Project After deliberation at the Public Improvement Hearing October 19, 2010, the City Council passed a resolution to order the project and begin the final design. The 2011– Phase 11 Project design is now underway and will be complete in time for Spring 2011 construction. The purpose of this memo is to inform/remind you of the following: C� I The 2011 –Phase 11 Project Report on Feasibility recommended the reconstruction of 58h Avenue to a 32 -foot wide street section. This is approximately two feet wider than the existing street. The reason for this is the City of Crystal's Comprehensive Plan guides 58th Avenue to be added to the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street network. 2. MSA street specifications require adherence to specific design and operation criteria. 58th Avenue would be 32 feet wide and parking, would be allowed on one side only. The south side is currently proposed. This proposed 58th Avenue MSA designation may happen as part of the 2011– Phase 11 project. The Report also recommends the construction of a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk at the back of the concrete curb on one side of 58h Avenue. The south side is currently proposed. As part of the City street reconstruction program policy, sidewalks are being, built on one side of MSA streets when the street is reconstructed. Sumter Avenue Please recall that in 2009, in cooperation with the City of New Hope, Sumter Avenue was reconstructed to a 32 - foot wide street as part of the 2009 – Phase 10 Project. This was done as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which guided Sumter Avenue to be added to the City's MSA Street network. The proposed Sumter Avenue MSA designation may happen as part of the 2011– Phase 11 project. The purpose of this memo is to inform you that the 2011 – Phase 11 Project Report recommends the —construction of a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk at the back of the concrete curb on one side of Sumter . Avenue in 2011. The east side is currently proposed. The final decision on street reconstruction and sidewalk on 58'h Avenue, and sidewalk construction along Sumter Avenue will not be determined until after input from the adjoining residents at the neighborhood meeting, and subsequent approval by the City Council. t5 4141 Douglas Drive North - Crystal, AIN 55422-1696 Telephone: (763) 531-1000 - Fax: (763) 531-1188 Website: www.ci.crystal.mn.us 581h and SUMTER AVENUES NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AGENDA 2011— PHASE 11 BROADWAY PARK STREET RECONSTRUCTION 42010-11 THURSDAY, 7:00 2.m., DEC, 9, 2010 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CRYSTAL CITY HALL INTRODUCTIONS, Tom Mathisen, Crystal City Engineer 2. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF MEETING, Tom M ® Comprehensive Plan ® Future addition to City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) street network ® State gas tax dollars and eligible improvements, including sidewalks. 3. FEASIBILITY STUDY RESULTS, Aaron Ditzler, SEH. 4. SIDEWALKS IN CRYSTAL, Tom M. ® Policy along State Aid Streets and connection to other roads 5. REVIEW OF MN STATE AID DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, Aaron D. • Width and Parking • Sidewalk o Location issues — boulevard & driveway grades, trees. ® Striping 6. COUNCIL ACTION, Aaron D. 7. DISCUSSION/RESIDENT INPUT, Aaron D. & Tom M. ® Street widths. ® Which side for parking? ® Which side for sidewalks? Striping issues. Other concerns. 8. FUTURE MEETINGS, Torn M. 2011 PHASE 11 BROADWAY PARK STREET RECONSTRUCTION 58TH AVENUE AND SUMTER AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING CITY CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA C RYST AL CITY NO. 2010-11 SEH NO. CRYST114482 DECEMBER 9, 2010 ROW 60' ROW 32' 9' FACE TO FACE 0.5 8.5' 2' REACTION PROFILE AREA /CROWN LINE 11' 8' S' DRIVE LANE�DRIVE LANE PARK NG WALK I � I R/W 2% 3' 2% ` 6" TOPSOIL SEE INSET & SOD �1 4" DRAIN TILE PROPOSED 8618 CONC 4" DRAIN TILE 0 CURB & GUTTER 1.5" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE 01 SEE GRAPHICS FOR LOCATIONS BIT. TACK COAT O 10" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE 2" BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE BETWEEN SUMTER AND QUEBEC AVENUES O WILL BE INSTALLED AS NECESSARY 8" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE O GEOTEXTILE FABRIC O AS A FIELD DECISION Typical Section — 58th Avenue Street Reconstruction '-...__._._._..._� 4141 Douglas Drive North e Crystal, MN 55422-1696 Telephone: (763) 531-1000 ® Fax: (763) 531-1188 Website: wwW-d-crystaLmn.us C�iI'57. rviK _,i i DATE: . December 28, 2010 TO: Property Owners and Residents of the 2011 - Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction Project Area FROM: City of Crystal and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. WHAT: Street Reconstruction Open House, Including Rain Gardens WHEN: Thursday, January 13, 2011; 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. WHERE: Crystal City Hall 4141 Douglas Drive North You are cordially invited to Crystal City Hall to review the nearly complete design details for street reconstruction near your property and neighborhood. The meeting will begin in the lower level Community Room at 6:00 p.m. and continue until 8:30 p.m. Project team members, including city staff, will be available to answer your questions and to consider your ideas in refining the final design. The meeting will be informal so please come at your convenience. We are also interested in hearing from those of you who have questions about your sump pump service, driveway reconstruction, or sanitary sewer repair/replacement. For those interested, there will be a brief presentation, video and discussion period starting at 7:00 pm in the Council Chamber. The presentation will both describe design features that have changed since the last Open House held on October 7, 2010 and answer the most commonly asked questions about a street reconstruction project. In addition to answering your current questions, we hope the presentation will help you formulate new ones. Upon completion of the presentation, you are invited back to the Community Room for further informal discussion rultil the Open House ends at 8:30 p.m. For those of you who are interested in having a rain garden installed in the City -owned boulevard in front of your home, there will be rain garden information in the Community Room and a brief presentation in the Council Chamber to review proposed rain garden design details, property owner responsibilities and answer the most commonly asked questions. The Crystal City Council will consider accepting the plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the project most likely at the February 1, 2011 meeting. We look forward to seeing you at the Open House. If you have any questions please contact the appropriate representative below: Aaron Ditzler Mick Cyert Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Crystal Engineering Dept. 952.912.2624 763.531.1161 aditzler@sehinc.com mick.cyert(i�ci crustal inn us 0 TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for January 4 Work Session Meeting) I RE: Phase 11 - Broadway Park Neighborhood Street Reconstruction - 58th 58th & Sumter as State Aid, Drought Resistant Sod Project #2010-11 INTRODUCTION As part of the ongoing street reconstruction program, the Council instructed the Engineering Department to conduct a neighborhood meeting for residents along 58t and Sumter Avenues to discuss the impacts of designating this corridor as a local State Aid Street with associated sidewalk construction and no parking designation on one side. The City's 2010 Comprehensive plan (attached), guides these two streets to become a part of the State Aid street network. In addition, due to issues with the success of establishing sod in some of the projects over the last seven years, an investigation has been made into alternative drought resistant ground cover choices that might be offered to property owners. DISCUSSION A neighborhood meeting was held at City Hall on Thyrsdai discuss the Avenue), an attachea ­inx cts of designa 7 -venue (Sum H December 9 to both Sumter Avenue (Bass Lake Road to 51 :) West Broadway) as State Aid streets (see meeting. Four property owners attended, three from 58"' Avenue and one from Sumter. Concern was expressed about the amount of traffic using the two roads to bypass the signals at Bass Lake Road and West Broadway. Recent traffic counts showing ADT of 1300 to 1400 vehicles per day confirm a higher volume of traffic on the two roads. This compares to 400 - 700 ADT on a typical residential street. It was explained to the property owners that the designation as a State Aid street does not attract more traffic. But rather, the designation simply acknowledges how the roads are currently being used. 0 In order to remain within the City's 20 miles maximum of designated State Aid streets, it will be necessary to un -designate a similar mileage in other parts of the city. A concern about the sidewalk on 58th Avenue was e I A e desire of another resident to have the S one resident but ns At the work session, the process of designation and de -designation will be discussed in more detail. A similar process took place in 2008 as part of the Phase 9 Cavanagh Oaks Street Project. Attached to this memo is a three page document from the U of M Extension. It discusses the pros and cons of using sod or seed to reestablish ground cover that must be replaced due to the construction project. If an alternative ground cover is offered as part of the Broadway Park project, some form of seeding would most likely be the method. This U of M document is part of additional information that will be* provided at the work session. Upubworks/projects/phasel 1 /state aid an dsodwrksessme rn, d oc 4141 Douglas Drive North Crystal, MN 55422-1696 Telephone: (763) 531-1000 Fax: (763) 531-1188 'CITY,ofd Website: www.ci.crystal.mn.us cRYSTAL 2011 — Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction Street Reconstruction Open House, Including Rain Gardens Crystal City Aall January 13, 2011 Community Room 6:00-7:00 Gathering and Informal Discussion Street Reconstruction — Council Chambers 7:00-7:05 Introductions and General Comments (Tom Mathisen — Crystal City Engineer) 7:05-7:15 Overall Project Presentation and Video 7:15-7:25 Phase 11 Project Summary (Aaron Ditzler — SEH) 0 Information Packet Summary 0 Drainage Swales 0 Municipal State Aid (MSA) Recommendations 0 Local non -MSA streets Standards 0 Design features that have changed since the last Open House 7:25-7:30 Financing (Mathisen) 7:30-7:40 Question and Answer (Mathisen, Ditzler) Page 1 of 2 7:40-7:45 Purpose of Meeting (Mathisen) 7:45-8:00 Rain Garden Design Features (Chris Cavett — SEH) ❑ Brief Background ❑ Design ❑ Planting ❑ Maintenance ❑ Schedule 8:00-8:05 Property Owner Responsibilities (Mathisen) 8:05-8:15 Discussion/Resident Input (Mathisen, Moore, Cavett, Ditzler) Communily Room 8:15-8:30 Gathering and Informal Discussion 8:30 Adjourn p:\ae\c\cryst\l 14482\lgenl\16-mtgs\neighborhood open house rain garden meeting\open house rain garden rntg agenda ph I Ldocx Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT — Work Session Phase 11 State Aid Streets Part 2 ,�KYSTAK, FROM: Tom Mathison, Public Works Director I City Engineer TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for January IS Work Session Meeting) DATE: January 14, 2011 RE: Broadway Park Neighborhood Street Reconstruction — 58th & Sumter Avenues State Aid Designation - Project #2010-11 At the January 4 work session, the Council was given a summary of the results of the December 9 neighborhood meeting with residents along the Sumter and 58th Avenues corridor in the Phase 11 project area. -Four residents representing four properties were in attendance. There was no direct opposition -to the designation of these two roads as State Aid streets. One resident thought the sidewalk should be installed on ff" Avenue. At the work session the Council instructed staff to pursue options for equivalent "un -designations" of existing State Aid streets to offset the mileage of the new proposed designations. That work has been completed and is shown on the attached summary sheet and map from the Comprehensive Plan. Also at the work session some concern was expressed regarding the un - designation of the portion of Hampshire Avenue between 47th and Fairview Avenues. Points of discussion focused on the need for a sidewalk along this stretch of Hampshire and what the traffic count was. Regarding the sidewalk, un -designating this stretch of Hampshire would not preclude the City from building a sidewalk on one side if the need is determined when the Forest North Street Reconstruction Project is built in the next few years. However, the cost would not be reimbursable from State Aid funds. The traffic count on this section of Hampshire was 305 in 2008. This compares to 720 on Hampshire between 42nd and 47t Avenues. The count on Hampshire south of 42'd is 540. The low count on the section proposed for un -designation was taken into account during the development of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. At that time it was determined that the proposed Sumter — 58th Avenue corridor with a count of approximately 1400 vehicles per day was a more appropriate location for designation as a State Aid street. The attached summary sheet shows the un -designation of Louisiana Avenue from Fairview to 53rd Avenue. Due to the crossing of the CP Rail, it is unlikely that this section of local street will ever be built. Another section is that portion of 47th Avenue east of Welcome Avenue to West Broadway. This section crosses the BN Rail, and also most likely will not be built. The section from Welcome Avenue to Vera Cruz was rebuilt two years ago as part of Phase 10, but State Aid funds were not used, which means there will be no payback penalty if this section is de - designated. As shown on the summary sheet, the proposed designations and un - designations balance within 115 feet. In evaluating all of the 17.94 designated State Aid streets, and eliminating any routes that have already been reconstructed as part of the reconstruction program, the proposed plan is the only viableway to accomplish the Sumter— 58th Avenue designations and. still meet the requirements of the State Aid Rules and Regulations. If the proposed plan is acceptable to the Council a mailing will be sent to the affected property owners along Sumter and 58th Avenues alerting them that this will be an agenda item at the January IS council meeting. Respectfully sub itted, - .t "I — -7 [T Thomas Mathison City Engineer/DPW Upubworks/projects/phasel I /state a 1dwrkse ss2mem. doc 4141 Douglas Drive North - Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 - Fax: (763) 531-1188 . www.ci.crystal.rnn-us January 25, 2011 Phase 11 Crystal Residents on 58" Avenue and also on Phase 10 Sumter Avenue To Whom It May Concern: As you know, 58th Avenue is being reconstructed this year as part of the Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction Project. This last November you received the attached letter inviting you to a public meeting to discuss some aspects of the project relating to your street. It has been proposed to designate both Sumter and 58th Avenues as State Aid Streets. You may have attended the meeting as did others. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the upcoming meeting: City Council MeetingI — Tuesday February 1, 7 p.m. City Hall, 4141 Douglas Drive At this meeting the Council may act on designating these two streets as State Aid Streets. The proposed changes ale not dramatic and in a real sense will not be that noticeable. This would mean that 5 8th Avenue would be rebuilt with a thicker more durable pavement section. It also means that the width of 58ffi Avenue would increase by approximately 2 feet from 30' to 32, and the north side would be posted No Parking. Sumter Avenue was already rebuilt in 2009 with the thicker pavement and 32 feet wide. It is proposed to,.*post No Parking on the west side of Sumter Avenue. It is City policy that when a State Aid Street is rebuilt, a five foot wide sidewalk is constructed on one side only, adjacent to the curb. The City will plow and otherwise maintain the sidewalk. it is proposed as part of the 2011 project to install a sidewalk on the east side of Sumter Avenue, and the south side of 58th Avenue. The Council is scheduled to take final action on these items at the above meeting. If you have concerns, please attend the meeting, or call me at 763-531-1160 or email at tmathisen@ci-crystal.rrm.us. pectfully, Tom Mathisen Crystal City Engineer 11pubworks/projects/phase1 Ustateaidchangeltr COUNCIL STAFF REPORT icnTRW Proposed State Aid Route Changes #2010-11 CICRYSTAL FROM: Tom Mathison, Public Works Director & City Engineer TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for February 1 City Council Meeting) DATE: January 26, 2011 RE: Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction State Aid Streets The attached January 14, 2011 memorandum, with attachments, provides a summary of the proposed action to designate both Sumter Avenue and 58th Avenue in the Phase 11 project area as part of the City's State Aid Street System. This is consistent with 2010 Comprehensive Plan. In order to accomplish this task, it is necessary to un - designate (revoke) the same mileage from the System in other locations in the City. All the locations are summarized on the attached document dated 1-11-11. The impact to the adjoining residential properties along Sumter and 58th Avenues will be minimal. Sumter Avenue was already rebuilt to the State Aid standard width of 32 feet in 2009. The proposed section of 58th Avenue will be rebuilt two feet wider than its current 30 foot width. Sidewalks are proposed along these two new MSA routes; one on the east side of Sumter and connecting to one on the south side of 58th Avenue. This will create a sidewalk loop from Bass Lake Road to West Broadway. Residents were notified of the proposed changes via a letter in late November inviting them to a December 9 project neighborhood meeting dedicated to this topic. They have also been notified per the attached January 25 letter of the pending Council action at the February 1 Council meeting. The first attached resolution revokes said portions of Louisiana, Hampshire, and 47t" Avenues. The second resolution designates those portions of Sumter and 58th Avenues as MSA routes. The third resolution establishes no parking on the north side of 58th Avenue and approves the installation of stop signs at the 90 degree intersection of Sumter Avenue and 58th Avenue in both directions. The no parking and the stop signs are requirements of State Aid Operations Chapter 8820. The stop signs are specifically required due to the poor sight distance at the 90 degree intersection. Approval of all three resolutions is recommended. pectfully s itted T m sr -A. en City Engineer Up ubwo rks/p rojects/phaseWstateaiddesig n atio nmem COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ;,CIT J�RYSTAL Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Project #2010-11 � .. C - FROM: Tom Mathisen, Public Works Director & City Engineer TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for February 1 City Council Meeting) DATE: January 27, 2011 RE: Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Ad for Bids On October 19, 2010, the Council adopted a resolution ordering the preparation of the plans and specifications for the Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction Project. That work has been completed and the Council is being requested to approve the plans and specifications and order the advertisement for bids. If the Council approves the plans and specification and orders the advertisement, the bid opening will be set as early as March 9, 2011. Depending on the bid results, the Council may be able to review the bids at the March 15 Council meeting, and set the date for the special assessment public hearing. As done with Phases 1 through 10, the assessment public hearing will be held prior to the contract award. Taking into account the required two week public hearing notice, it would be possible to award the contract after the public hearing during the same meeting on April 19. However, depending on the ultimate timing of these events, as in the past is may be necessary to hold a Special Meeting. The total estimated project cost remains at $3,758,041, essentially the same amount that was in the feasibility study, and this number is now based on the final design quantities. The cost will be financed through the sale of municipal bonds and ultimately funded through a combination of Minnesota State Aid (MSA) Highway funds, Storm Drain Utility Funds, Street Reconstruction Fund balance, and special assessments levied on the benefited properties. The estimated unit assessment is $4,917 (a 5.0% increase over the $4,683 assessed for both Phases 9 and 10 in 2008 and 2009) per single/duplex residence for street and storm sewer, plus $18.88/front foot for curb where none presently exists or "D" curb exists, and a lesser curb rate where the city standard "13618" ' curb exists. The estimated commercial and non-profit rate for street and storm sewer is $88.19 per front foot (also a 5.0% increase). There is no impact on the General Fund. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids. Res ctfully sub qlfitted, Thomas A. ath athisen City Engineer I: pubworks/projects/phasel 1/orderadphasel 1 mem INZEIM mass".] :0111110 T -T AM Fat: • �, WHEREAS, pursuant to a Resolution passed by the Council on the 19th day of October, 2010, and under the provisions of Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, the firm of Short, Elliot, and Hendrickson has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of the Phase 11 Broadway Park area of Crystal by street, curb and gutter, and drainage reconstruction, and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in a trade journal an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Clerk until the time on the specified bid opening date, at which time they will be publicly opened at the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer or their representative, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at a future date, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Crystal for 5% of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 1 st day of February 2011. ReNae J. Bowman, Mayor ATTEST: Janet Lewis, City Clerk Resolution designating Sumter Avenue North from County Road 10 to 58th Avenue North, as well as 58th Avenue North, from Quebec Avenue North to Pennsylvania Avenue North, as city of New Hope state aid routes WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the city of New Hope that the streets hereinafter described should be designated Municipal State Aid Streets under the provisions of Minnesota law; WHEREAS, Sumter Avenue North and a portion of 58th Avenue North serve as border streets between the city of New Hope and the city of Crystal; designation of these routes will be in conjunction with the city of Crystal designating the sections of these streets that exist in the city of Crystal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of New Hope that the roads described as follows, to wit: Sumter Avenue North — That portion existing in New Hope (west hao, between County Road 10 (Bass Lake Road) and 58th Avenue North (0.12 Miles = % of 0.24 total length, other half belonging to the city of Crystal). 58th Avenue North — That portion existing in New Hope (south half between Quebec Avenue North and Pennsylvania Avenue North), between Sumter Avenue North and West Broadway (CSAH8) (0.03Miles ='/ of 0.06 total between Quebec and Pennsylvania Avenues, other half, and remaining total, belonging to the city of Crystal). be, and hereby are established, located, and designated Municipal State Aid Streets of said city, subject to the approval of the commissioner of transportation of the state of Minnesota, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city cleric is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the commissioner of transportation for consideration, and upon approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof, that the same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of New Hope. This resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota. this 14th day of February, 201 L Attest: XLe City Cleric (� �ld- �/� 4 Mayor City of New Hope Resolution No. 11- 28 Relating to parking restrictions on Sumter Avenue North All in the city of New Hope, Minnesota THIS RESOLUTION passed on the 14th day of February, 2011, by the Pe in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal Corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City," WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, the "City" has completed the improvement of Sumter Avenue North from the Crystal south corporate limit (near 58th Avenue North) to Bass Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the improvements did not provide adequate width for parking on both sides, and approval of the proposed designation of Sumter Avenue North as a Municipal State Aid Street must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE, that the "City" shall ban the parking of motor vehicles at all times as follows: Sumter Avenue North, the west side, from the Crystal south corporate limit (near 58th Avenue North) to Bass Lake Road Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 14th day of February, 2011. A A ayor Attest W-.,, City Clerk ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) STREETS SUMTER AVENUE NORTH 58TH AVENUE NORTH All in the City of Crystal, Minnesota THIS RESOLUTION passed on the 1st day of February 2011, by the City of Crystal in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal Corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, it is clear to the City that due to scheduled construction of the Phase 11 Broadway Park Street Reconstruction Project #2010-11, it is desirable to designate a new State Aid route by using mileage that has become available due to the revocation of certain routes that will not be built in the Riture; and WHEREAS, it therefore becomes necessary to designate the 1,285 foot (0.24 mile) portion of Sumter Avenue N. between 56th Avenue N. (Bass Lake Road) and 58th Avenue N. as a State Aid Street; and to designate the 2,143 foot (0.41 mile) portion of 58th Avenue N. between Sumter Avenue N. and West Broadway Avenue N. as a State Aid Street. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL that the roads described as follows, to -wit: Swnter Avenue N. including the 1,285 feet between 56t" Avenue N. and 58t" Avenue N.; and 58th Avenue N. including the 2,143 feet between Sumter Avenue N. and West Broadway Avenue N., be and hereby are established as MSA Streets of Crystal, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota; AND FURTHER, that the City Cleric is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration, and that upon approval of the designation of said roads or portions thereof, that same be constructed, improved and maintained as MSA Streets of the City of Crystal. Adopted this 1st day of February, 2011. ReNae J. Bo ti an, ayor ATTEST: Janet/ ewis, City Clerk I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the Crystal City Council on February 1, 2011. (SEAL) ,����-( (City Clerk) City of Crys+ta RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 15 RELATING TO STOP SIGNS AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON 5S' H AVENUE NORTH AND SUMTER AVENUE NORTH All in the City of Crystal, Minnesota THIS RESOLUTION, passed on the 1st day of February 2011, by the City of Crystal in Hennepin County, Miiu-iesota. The Municipal Corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City," WITNESSETH; WHEREAS the City has planned the improvement of 58th Avenue North from Sumter Avenue North to West Broadway Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City will be expending State Municipal Street Aid Funds on the improvement of these streets; and WHEREAS, the improvements will not meet horizontal curve requirements and not provide adequate width for parldnain on both sides, and approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon installation of stop signs and certain parking restrictions, all according to State Aid Operations Chapter 8820. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CRYSTAL: That stop signs be installed at both legs of the intersection of Sumter Avenue North and 5 8 Avenue North; AND FURTHER, that the City shall ban the parldng of motor vehicles at all times on the north side of 5 8"' Avenue North between Sumter Avenue North and West Broadway Avenue North. Adopted this I sy day of Februai y 2011. ATTEST: Janet Lewis, City Clerk I:pubworlcs/projects/phaselO/State Aid/Stateaid&OpNoparkres TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager Charles Hansen, Finance Director Tom Mathisen, Public Works Directornj RE: Consideration of Phase 11 Sod Watering Financial Assistance WMA9KY9994 The 2011 Phase 11 project will be the first street reconstruction project since the new tiered water conservation rates went into effect. Over the years, there has been discussion regarding a possible subsidy to property owners to assist in the expense of watering sod installed as part of a street project. With the recent implementation of the tiered water conservation rates, this may be a good time to consider several options. DISCUSSION Current project specifications require the contractor to water sod for 30 days after it is installed. Property owners are notified of the 30 -day limit, and are instructed regarding their subsequent responsitility to water and otherwise keep the sod viable until it becomes fully established. To estimate the cost of watering sod, it is necessary to make some assumptions. They are as follows: 1. The average sodded area is 75 feet by 15 feet equal to 1,125 square feet. 2. The amount of watering is 1.5 inches per week, applied by three waterings of 0.5 inches each. 3. The owner watering duration is 2 months (8 weeks) beyond the initial first month, 4. The cost of water is $4.75 per 1,000 gallons in Tier 3. The 1.5 inches per week is based on a rule of thumb of 1.0 inches per week for established turf. The 1.5 inches is considered sufficient to establish sod during typical 70 — 80 degree weather conditions. It is not assumed that a property owner would be watering their turf even if there was not a street project. It might be argued that this amount of water should be a deduction from the amount to water sod. Many property owners do not water. Option 1 With the above assumptions, the cost of 2 months of 3 times per week watering this average sized sodded area is $39.97 for the application of one foot or 8,415 gallons of water. There are 329 parcels in Phase 11. If the subsidy was 100% and covered two months, the total cost would be $13,160. Additional months of subsidy could be added at a rate of $19.98 per parcel per month. Option 2 In previous projects, there has been no financial assistance for watering. If the recent implementation of tiered rates is the impetus for considering a subsidy at this time, it is useful to know that the cost difference between the 1St and 3rd tiers is $0.81 per 1,000 gallons. If the subsidy were designed to only cover any additional cost due to the tiered rates, the amount would be $6.82 per parcel per month. Lq�0'1:4t4[ There are other factors that would have to be considered: ® How to determine if a property qualifies for the subsidy. Would the subsidy to apply to all properties in a current project area, or would it be tied to an end result such as the sod becoming established? This would require an inspection at the end of the watering season to determine the status of the sod. ® There are many different lot sizes. It would take considerable record keeping and time to tie the subsidy amount to the actual amount of sodded area. ® Would the subsidy apply to both residential and commercial/non-profit properties? ® The subsidy should be a standard dollar amount applied to each lot and would be entered into the utility billing system on the next bill after the end of the watering season. i1pubworks/projects/phasel 00/sod/financial assistance TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Managerah!✓ SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to Joint Powers Agreement — West Metro Fire District A subcommittee of representatives from the Crystal and New Hope city council met over the past year (or two) to review the joint powers agreement (JPA) for the West Metro Fire District (WMFD). The subcommittee's report and proposed JPA changes (attached) were presented at the January 19 WMFD Board meeting and the Board referred the report and proposed changes to both city councils. At the February 1 work session, the Crystal Council discussed the proposed changes and referred the JPA to the City Attorney for review and comment. Both the Crystal and New Hope city attorneys have reviewed the proposed changes and current JPA language and provided the following comments. 1. Regarding Board powers, Article VII, Section 7, suggest changing the second sentence to read "The board shall provide a written answer to the query to all member cities." to clarify the Board will respond in writing to a member city query. 2. Regarding Financial Matters, Article VIII, Sect. 3.e., suggest changing the last sentence to read "If the majority of the committee cannot agree on the budget, the budget will be submitted to binding arbitration as provided in Article X, Section 2." to clean up some typos. 3. Regarding the annual contribution formula in Financial Matters, Article VIII, Section 4, it is suggested the following changes are made to clarify when formula changes are applied during the budget process: Sec. 4. Each city's respective shared cost of the succeeding annual budget is determined by application of the following formula, which is to be computed as of December 31 of the preceding year: A+p+v / A+P+V x 100 = % of total budget due from specific municipality where CRYSTAL a = municipality's avg. 745 calls over 5 years p=municipality's popula. 24,000 v = municipality's mkt. 752 in millions A=district average calls over 5 yrs P = district population [WOK4]:101111 For purposes of the formula: 0.5107 0.4893 1,397 47,000 a/A = 5 year average of calls to be computed as of each preceding December 31. p/P = Population is the population figure found on the last federal decennial census. vN = Market value determined by figures last equalized and determined by state department of revenue. 4. Regarding Dispute Resolution, Article X, Section 1, City Attorney Mike Norton strongly recommends the time limit for the board to a dispute should be shortened to 30 days (rather than the proposed 60 days). 5. Also regarding Dispute Resolution, Article X, Section 2, suggest adding two sentences at the end to clarify that any arbitration should be guided by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The two sentences added at the end of Section 2 read "The Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration in conformance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association or other recognized dispute resolution organization. In the alternative, the cities may elect to utilize the services of the American Arbitration Association for the selection of the arbitrator and the conduct of the binding arbitration." There is a typo in the first sentence and the sentence should read "In the event the determination by the board is rejected by the disputing city, the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration." The Council should review the proposed changes. If the changes are acceptable the revised JPA will be on a future Council agenda for formal approval. Attach: • ,••, • •r .111, 11 5 1 lill 1 15 1 F• Joint powers agreements provide a mechanism whereby municipalities can create an entity and delegate certain functions and powers to that entity. Inherent in the creation of a joint powers entity is a certain tension between the control retained by the contracting cities and the autonomy of the joint powers entity. That is especially true when the entity is one, such as the West Metro Fire District (the "District"), that performs a core public safety function and has a major impact on the budget of the member cities. That tension has become apparent in the District in recent years during budget discussions. The Joint Powers Review Committee was formed with the task of reviewing the WMFD Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to determine if there may be changes to the JPA that could alleviate some of those tensions and improve the functioning of the District. The Committee submits this report to the Board of Directors of the District and recommends that the proposed revisions to the JPA be submitted to the member cities for their approval. H. THE PROCESS The committee began its review process by meeting several times to discuss issues that the members felt had arisen that might be addressed by revisions in the JPA. Based upon the discussion in those meetings the committee prepared a draft of a revised JPA and circulated it to the interested parties for comment. After comments were received the committee met again to consider the comments and make any changes to the draft revision that the committee felt was necessary. III. ISSUES During the committee's discussions three major areas of concern were identified that the committee felt should be addressed by revisions to the JPA. Those areas are: 1. The budget process, and in particular a mechanism to resolve a disagreement between the cities during the budget process. 2. Communication between the District and the member cities. 3. The duties and responsibilities of directors appointed by the member cities and the accountability of directors to their appointing city. The committee recommends that Articles IV, VII and VIII be revised and a new Article X be added to the JPA. A. ARTICLE IV. The committee proposes to add three new sections to this article. The proposed Section 3 states that a director must diligently perform the duties of the office and provides a mechanism whereby a director who fails to attend meetings of the board can be replaced. It is important that each city be ftilly represented on the board. A director who is unable or unwilling to attend meetings impairs a city's representation and the committee believes it is necessary to provide a mechanism to address that situation should it arise. Proposed Section 4 spells out the directors' duty to communicate with their council on matters that are material to the operations of the District. The committee believes this is an important function of a director and it was best to state that in the JPA. Because of the impact that the District has on the budget of each city, the committee felt it was appropriate to provide some guidance in this section as to the financial matters that would be considered material to the District's operations. Proposed Section 5 provides each city with a right to remove a director that a city does not feel is fully or adequately performing the duties of a director. The purpose of this proposed section is to enhance director accountability. The section provides that a director may be removed without cause in order to avoid a dispute over what constitutes cause and whether or not such cause exists. The possibility exists that a director could be removed for political reasons, but that possibility already exists when a council member serves on the board and loses an election. All of city government, including the District must be responsive to the will of the people as expressed in election results. The committee felt that the improved accountability was worth the risk of a city's representation on the board being impacted by political considerations. B. ARTICLE VII. The committee proposes that Section 5 be revised. The revision would delete the dispute resolution language which the committee proposes to address in a new article. The revision would add language requiring the board to adopt a bylaw providing for a plan for communicating with the councils. This revision is intended to address the concern that has been repeatedly expressed in the joint meetings of the city councils about the lack of communication between the District and the cities. Proposed Section 6 requires the board to annually evaluate the performance of the District. The results of that performance evaluation are to be reported to each council by the board president and the chief. The committee believes this is a step in improving communication that is of sufficient importance that it should be spelled out in the JPA. Proposed Section 7 provides a mechanism whereby either city can inquire about any matter that is of concern to the city. This proposed section is intended to address the concern that was often stated in the joint council meetings that questions directed to the District were not being fully answered. The query process established by this section requires each city to be informed of any query by the other city. The committee believes this will make each city aware of issues that are of concern to the other city and facilitate communication and cooperation between the cities and the District. Proposed Section 8 was suggested by Director Hubbard and formalizes the requirement that the board review the chief's performance. This is already part of the board's duties. C. ARTICLE VIII. The current version of this article has been a source of conflict during recent years because the article as it exists gives each city a veto over the budget of the District without providing a mechanism to resolve a disagreement between the cities. In order to address this problem the committee recommends that current sections 2, 3 and 4 be extensively revised. The committee proposes a revision of Section 2 that eliminates what is conceptually redundant language in the current subparts a. and b. The revision clarifies that the budget must be adopted by the annual meeting. Article V, Section 3 requires the annual meeting be held in June, so the board would be required to adopt a budget before the end of June. The committee also recommends that old section 3 be combined with section 2 to provide a more coherent budget section. The committee proposes to revise Section 4 which becomes a new Section 3. The revisions to the section are intended to more clearly spell out the timeline for a final budget to be adopted. The revisions also provide a mechanism to resolve disagreements about the budget between the cities. Disagreements about the budget in recent years have necessitated the holding of joint council meetings and have delayed the final adoption of a budget for the District until late in the year. The mechanism provided by the proposed revision should eliminate the need for joint council meetings and ensure a timely adoption of a final budget for the District. If the cities accept the budget adopted by the board then it is not necessary to resolve a disagreement. But if a disagreement arises, then the committee believes that the proposed conference committee provides a means for a speedy and fair resolution of that disagreement. D. NEW ARTICLE X. The current JPA requires the board to adopt a bylaw providing for dispute resolution. Since disputes concerning the budget were being addressed in the revisions to the JPA, the committee felt it was appropriate to put the general dispute resolution mechanism in the JPA rather than the bylaws. The committee received comments from Crystal, Chief Crandall, and Director Hubbard. Chief Crandall suggested that Article IV, Section 1 be revised to provide that the city managers would be ex -officio non-voting members of the board. The committee does not believe this change is necessary at this time. Both Chief Crandall and Director Hubbard suggested that Article IV be revised to require that at least one of the directors from each city be a citizen who is not a member of the council. Although the committee recognizes the importance of encouraging citizen participation in city government, the committee did not adopt this suggestion for two reasons. First, both cities have experienced situations where no citizens have applied for appointment to commissions. The committee felt that it was necessary to allow the councils the flexibility to fill a vacancy with a council member when no citizen applied for the position. Secondly, as noted earlier, the District performs a core governmental fiunction and its budget is a major part of each city's budget. Because council members will be better informed about the entire city budget and presumably can better understand the impact that the District's budget will have on their city budget, the committee believes that it is best to leave to each city the decision as to whether or not the directors appointed by that city should be council members. Director Hubbard felt the proposed Article IV, Section 4 should read: Directors are responsible for informing their respective appointing Councils of all matters requested by the Council or which the Director reasonably believes are material to the operations of the District. The committee believes that an important part of the job of directors is communication with their councils. The committee felt it was appropriate to spell this out in the JPA and to place at least some of the burden of coming forward with information on the directors. Chief Crandall commented that allowing the removal of a director without cause would leave the position open to a popularity contest. As discussed above the committee felt this was worth the risk to improve accountability. Director Hubbard suggested that a provision providing for the creation of an executive committee be added to the JPA. The committee believes this is more appropriately addressed in the bylaws. Director Hubbard suggested that the annual meeting be changed to January because that is when board officers are elected. This would trigger some revisions to the budget process language which is now tied to an annual meeting in June. The committee felt it was best to leave the annual meeting in June. Chief Crandall inquired as to whether the query process contained in Article VII, Section 7 was meant to eliminate the ability of individual council members to ask at will questions. The committee does not presume to tell individual council members what their rights of inquiry about any matter impacting their city may be. However, it is the committee's hope that the formal query process will be used for all but the most minor inquiries. The committee believes that the use of the query process will insure that all council members in both cities, as well as the board members, are fully aware of issues of concern to any individual council member. Crystal expressed concern about the timing of the budget adoption and wanted the deadline for the council response to be 45 days after the adoption of the budget. The committee did not accept this suggestion. The proposed revision sets the deadline for a council response at July 315`. A 45 day timeline could result in the deadline being pushed into August if the board does not adopt a budget until late June. Chief Crandall commented that the term "immediately" used to define when the adopted budget was transmitted to the cities was too subjective. The committee does not agree. The committee believes that "immediately" means just that, i.e. no later than the first business day following the adoption of the budget by the board. Both Chief Crandall and Director Hubbard expressed concern that the conference committee process did not include participation by the board and the chief. Both were concerned that the process would reduce the District's ability to control its own budget. Under the current joint powers agreement both cities have an absolute veto over the budget with no mechanism to address what happens when one of the cities exercises that veto power. The conference committee process only operates when the cities are not in agreement about the budget. There is nothing in the language of the provision for a conference committee that either requires the conference committee to take input from the chief or prohibits it from doing so. This committee feels that it is appropriate to leave it to the discretion of the conference committee members to determine what if any information they need to resolve the budgetary disagreement. Both Chief Crandall and Crystal suggested that the formula for determining each city's share of the budget should be revised. The committee does not believe it is appropriate to do so at this time. Chief Crandall suggested that Article XI Section 3 be revised to require the board to update the district compensation plan every four years. The committee believes this is best left to the discretion of the board rather than mandated in the JPA. Chief Crandall commented that Article X Sec. 1 should provide that dispute resolution should be the first order of new business rather than the first order of business to be consistent with the current agenda practice. The committee believes the proposed language is more appropriate. The current bylaw concerning dispute resolution says that any dispute is the first order of business at a board meeting. Furthermore, given the importance of the resolution of a dispute between the member cities, the committee believes it is appropriate for the board to take up the matter outside of the regular order of business. Chief Crandall suggested that the revised JPA should be signed by the president of the board as well as by the two city managers. The committee does not believe this is appropriate. The JPA is a contract between the cities whereby the District is created and exists. The District is not a party to that contract, but a creature of it. During the years the District has been in existence events have shown that there is a need to revise the JPA to improve the workings of the District and its relationship to the member cities. The committee recognizes that it is impossible to create a document that can anticipate and address every possible situation that could arise in the fixture. The committee believes that the revisions it is proposing will improve the operation and the long term viability of the District. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the board forward the proposed revisions to the cities for their consideration. West Metro Fire -Rescue District The parties to this agreement are the City of Crystal and the City of New Hope, governmental units in Hennepin County, Minnesota. This agreement is made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 and Laws of Minnesota 1995, chapter 262, Article I l (collectively, the Act). ARTICLE I Background: General Purpose Section 1. The city councils of the cities of Crystal and New Hope have investigated the facts and have determined that it is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of those cities to create and organize a joint fire department to provide effective and economical fire suppression services. Sec. 2. Article 11 of the Act authorizes the establishment of a "joint powers fire department" and provides for the consolidation of the fire relief associations related to the respective fire departments in the two cities. Sec. 3. The general purpose of this agreement is to create a joint powers fire department that serves the two cities. ARTICLE II Definitions Section 1. For purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this article have the meanings given them. Sec. 2. "Agreement" means this agreement. Sec. 3. "Board" means the board of directors created by Article IV. Sec. 4. "Director" means a director appointed under Article IV of this agreement. Sec. 5. "City Council" means the city cotuicil of either the City of Crystal or the City of New Hope, or both cities, as the context requires. Sec. 6. "Joint fire district" or "district" means the joint fire departmental organization created by this agreement. district. Sec. 7. "Fire District Chief" or "Chief' means the chief executive officer of the joint fire - 1 - ARTICLE III District Created The Crystal New Hope joint fire district is created by this agreement. The district shall be known as West Metro Fire -Rescue District. The district will provide services including, but not limited to, fire suppression, emergency medical support, specialized rescue and extrication services, fire prevention, public fire safety education, emergency hazardous materials release response, and fire cause and origin determination. The cities of Crystal and New Hope agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. The cities are members of the district. ARTICLE IV Board of Directors Section 1. The governing body of the district is its board of directors. The board consists of seven members selected as follows: a. two members representing the City of Crystal appointed by Council resolution. At least one of the two members shall be a current member of the city council of the City of Crystal; b. two members representing the City of New Hope appointed by council resolution. At least one of the two members shall be a current member of the city council of the City of New Hope; C. the city manager of Crystal; d. the city manager of New Hope; e. one member, not an employee of the district or of the police department of either City, appointed by j oint resolution of the city councils of the City of New Hope and the City of Crystal. This member need not be a resident of New Hope or Crystal. Members may not be an employee of the district or of the police department of either city. A director has one vote. Sec. 2. The term of a director is two years commencing on January 1. Directors serve until their respective successors are appointed and qualify. A vacancy in the office of director is filled in the same manner that an appointment of a director iiutially is made. If a council member or city manager director ceases to hold that position, the office of director held by that council member or city manager is vacant femoved with or- without ea -use bN, the vete of thfee fifths ef the eouneil- appointing the direeton Sec 3 Directors shall diligently perform the duties of a director. If a A director who fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the board without reasonable cause, the council -2- appointing such director may declare the office of director vacant and fill the office by appointment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. sh-a -be deemed to ha- e a made e the offiee of direetor atid the position of that dir-eeteF shall be deemed t-A lbe yageagnt. The council appointing a director shall have the sole right to determine if a director's absence from a meeting is with or without reasonable cause. Sec. 4. Directors are responsible for informing their respective appointing councils of all matters which the director reasonably believes are material to the operations of the District, including an�expenditu es by the District in that exceed amounts authorized by an adopted budget by more than one percent of the anou nt authorized by the budget. Sec. 5.. Directors appointed solely y the vote of one city council may be removed with or without cause by the vote of three-fifths of the council appointing the director. ARTICLE V Meetings Sec. 1. The board must provide in its bylaws for a schedule of regular meetings. A regular meeting must be held at least once each calendar quarter. A quorum consists of four members of the Board of Directors and must include either a city council member or city manager member from each city. A smaller number of members from the Board may adjourn from time to time. Sec. 2. A special meeting of the board may be called by the president and must be called by the president upon written request of the number of directors specified in the bylaws. Notice of a special meeting must be given in accordance with the bylaws and with law. The resolution appointing directors must specify a mailing address for directors for purposes of giving notice. Business at a special meeting is limited to matters contained in the notice of that special meeting. Sec. 3. The annual meeting of the board must be held in the month of June. Sec. 4. Meetings of the board are governed by the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705. ARTICLE VI Officers: Committees Section 1. The officers of the board are a president, a vice president and a secretary -treasurer elected by the directors at the annual meeting for a term of one year. The board may designate a director to act as an officer in the absence of that officer. Sec. 2. The president presides at meetings of the board. The vice president performs the duties of the president in the absence of the president. Sec. 3. The president, the secretary -treasurer or any two such officers must sign vouchers or orders disbursing funds of the agency. The district must provide in its bylaws for additional -3- procedures for the disbursement of funds. Disbursements must be made in the manner prescribed by law for statutory cities. Sec. 4. The board may in its by-laws provide for and define the duties of such other officers as it deems necessary from time to time. Sec. 5. The board may in its by-laws provide for such committees as it determines necessary from time to time. A by-law providing for an executive committee and defining the powers and duties of an executive committee may be adopted by a majority vote of all members of the board. Sec. 6. Contracts, bonds and other legal instruments of the district must be executed and delivered on behalf of the district by the president and the Chief. ARTICLE VII Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors Section 1. The board may take such actions as it deems necessary and desirable to accomplish the general purpose of this agreement. Sec. 2. The board may a. enter into contracts with public or private agencies or persons to carry out its powers and duties; b. provide for the prosecution, defense or other participation in proceedings at law or in equity in which it may have an interest; C. employ such persons as it deems necessary on a part-time, full-time or consultant basis; d. purchase, hold or dispose of personal property; e. contract for space, commodities or personal services with either city; f. accept gifts on behalf of the district, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other property from the state, the United States of America and from other govermnental units and enter into agreements in connection therewith and hold, use and dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto; and g. apply for and pay premiums on policies of insurance and surety bonds for personnel in such amounts as it deems necessary, provided that the board must provide that the commission or each of its members has public liability insurance coverage in the maximum liability amounts specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 466.04. M Sec. 3. The board must, from time to time, but not less than once each calendar quarter, submit a written report to each city council summarizing in the detail necessary to adequately inform each city council of the district's activities and financial status. Sec. 4. Each city agrees, subject to legislative discretion, to adopt the then current Minnesota Fire Code within six months of that code being adopted by the state of Minnesota. Each city agrees to adopt optional appendix chapter 1306 of the Minnesota Building Code for "Special Fire Protection Systems" within one year after the effective date of this agreement. Sec. 5. The board in its bylaws shall adopt a plan of communication whereby the board shall keep the councils of the member cities informed of all matters the board reasonably believes are material to the operation of the Districtjnust adopt ed-ures for the i:eseltAien ofd between the eities abot# the interpretation or vielation e. ...ie tei:ms of this agFeement. These pr-eeedufes must provide for- an oppeftunity for- the board to resolve the dispute, and fei: t! 1. f the dispute to mediation ef ar-b +ration. Sec 6 At least once each year the board shall evaluate the performance of the District. After the evaluation is completed the president of the board and the chief of the District shall attend a meeting of the council of each member city and report to the council the results of the evaluation and on the state of the District. Sec 7 A member city mgy query the board about any matter or fact concerning the district or its operations A query shall be submitted to the board by a resolution of the council of the querying city. The query shall state the information sought or the question to be answered. A copy of the query shall be delivered to the other member city. The board shall take up a query as a matter of new business at the meeting of the board immediately following the receipt of the query. The board shall provide an answer to the query to all member cities If the board believes more time is necessary to properly respond to the query, the board shall advise the cities of the reasons more time is needed and the date the response will be delivered. Sec 8 The board shall annually conduct a formal performance review of the Fire Chief. The review will be approved by the board arid will be apernianent part of the Chief s personal file. ARTICLE VIII Financial Matters Section 1. The fiscal year of the district is the calendar year. Sec. 2. No later than its annual meetingthe a. The district must annual y, prior- to july 1 adopt a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year. and submit it to eaeh eity ,.,.,,ne l prier to july 15. -5- Se - The proposed budget must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board of Directors. Expenditures of the district may be made only pursuant to the budget as finally adopted pursuant to section 34. Sec. 34. a. —After adoption of the proposed budget, the board shall immediately t forward copies of the budget to each member city. b. Each council shall promptly review the budget. No later than July 31, each council shall notify the board and the other council of the its acceptance of the budget or its Either eity eouneil may FeWrn the proposed budget te the board with the eity eouneil's recommendations for changes to the budget. , c. If each council accepts the budget adopted by the board that budget shall be deemed to be the final budget adopted for the comingfiscal Year. d. If either council submits recommendations for changes to the budget, the other council shall notify the board and the submitting council of its acceptance or rejection of the changes no later than August 31. If the councils agree t upon the recommended changes, then the budget adopted by the board shall be deemed amended by the recommended changes and the budget as changed shall be the final budget adopted for the comingfiscal iscal year. e. If the councils do not agree on the budget as adopted by the board and any changes recommended by either council than there shall be a conference committee consisting of the cit manager tanager of each city, the council member from each city who is also a board member and one council member from each city who is not a board member. The conference committee shall meet promptly to resolve all disagreements concerning the budget The committee shall resolve all disagreements between the cities concerning the budget by a vote of the majority of the committee. The committee shall complete the resolution of any disagreements concerning the budget no later than September 30. The budget as recommended by the committee shall than be submitted to the board and each city council and shall be deemed to be the final budget adopted for the comingfiscal year. If a majority of the committee cannot agree on the budget the budget shall be submitted to binding arbitration in as provided in Article X, Section 2. f. Upon adoption of the final budget by eaeh city ^ouftei , each member city is obligated to the district for the budgeted revenues and cost sharing charges fixed by the board for the ensuing fiscal year in accordance with this article. Sec. 45. Each city's respective shared cost of the amzual budget is determined by application of the following formula: A+p+v / A+P+V x 100 = % of total budget due from specific municipality where a = municipality's avg. calls over 5 years p = municipality's population v = municipality's mkt. value in millions 745 652 24,000 23,000 752 777 A = district average calls over 5 years 1,397 P = district population 47,000 PERCENT 0.5107 0.4893 For purposes of the formula: a/A = 5 year average of calls to be computed as of each December 31 p/P = Population is the population figure found on the last federal decennial census. vN = Market value determined by figures last equalized and determined by state department of revenue. The percentage allocation shown above applies to a budget adopted in the year 1997. ARTICLE IX Personnel and Administration Section 1. The chief is responsible to the board for the efficient and economical operation of the district, the hiring, termination, supervision, discipline and the supervision and direction of its personnel, the establishment of rules of conduct for those personnel, and carrying out the policies and procedures adopted by the board. The chief is appointed by the board and serves at the pleasure of the board. The chief is a full time employee of the district a-ge-nsy-and may enter into an employment contract with the board. Sec. 2. Paid on-call employees of the district are members of the Consolidated Fire Relief Association. Other employees are members of the appropriate public employees retirement fiind, if eligible. Sec. 3. The compensation of the employees of the district is set by the board. The board must have an adopted compensation plan. ARTICLE X Dispute Resolution Sec 1 In the event either city believes that there has been an incorrect interpretation by the District of a term or condition of this Agreement, the other city has failed to perforin an obligation wider this Agreement or there has otherwise been a violation of this Agreement, then the city council of such city shall adopt a resolution statin the specific facts that the city believes give rise to the dispute The resolution shall be immediately transmitted to the President of the board upon its adoption by the city colulcil. The board shall must consider the resolution as the first order of business at its next regularly scheduled meetingL and must submit its resolution of the dispute within sixty (60) days thereafter by written communication to both cities. The objecting city mgy accept the determination of the board reject the determination of the board, or withdraw the dispute. -7- Sec. 2. In the event the determination by the board is rejected the disputing cit}, the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The board shall select three arbitrators whose names shall be submitted to the cities. Each city shall strike one name from the list. The remaining person named shall be the arbitrator who shall hear the dispute. Each city and the board shall appoint a representative to appear at the arbitration and present their respective positions to the arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final. Each cit shall paY one-half of the fees of the arbitrator and each city shall bear its own costs for the arbitration. ARTICLE XI Dissolution: Amendment Section 1. The district may be dissolved at any time by unanimous vote of the board or by identical resolutions of dissolution adopted by the city councils. The district must be dissolved upon written notice given by one city to the board and the other city prior to December 1 of any year stating an intent to withdraw as of December 31 of the calendar year following the notice. In the event of dissolution, the board will continue to fimction for the purposes of winding up district affairs. Sec. 2. Upon dissolution, the board must take the steps necessary to effect dissolution as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this agreement and the Act. Sec. 3. Upon dissolution and following the final payment of the district's outstanding obligations, the remaining assets of the district are to be distributed to the members in direct proportion to their respective cumulative contribution to the assets of the district. An asset transferred to the district under Article VIII must be returned to the city contributing that asset. New or replacement assets must be distributed to each city, based on fair market value appraisal, in shares determined by using the funding formula set out in Article VIII, section 5. If the outstanding obligations of the district exceed its assets, less the return of contributions required by this section, the payment of such excess obligation must be made in equal shares by the members. Sec. 4. This agreement may be amended by identical resolutions adopted by the city council of Crystal and the city council of New Hope and filed together with the amendment with the chief. ARTICLE XII Effective Date Section 1. This amended and restated agreement is effective on the date following the day on which executed copies of this agreement, accompanied by a resolution of the city council of each member city, are filed with the city clerk of the City of Crystal and City of New Hope. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned goverm-nental units have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf as of this day of , 201103. CITY OF CRYSTAL By Its Mayor By Its City Manager CITY OF NEW HOPE By Its Mayor m Its City Manager Recorded and filed this _ day Recorded and filed this _ day of 201103. of 201143. Clerk, City of Crystal, Minnesota m Clerk, City of New Hope, Minnesota TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager It/ SUBJECT: Amending City Code Regarding Chickens Over the last year, the Council has received two requests for City Code amendments to allow chickens. Attached is a study about keeping chickens in urban areas provided by Tyler Marsh, one of the residents making the request. Also attached is information provided by the other resident, Lynn Marx, about Minneapolis chicken regulations and excerpts from the Murray McMurray Hatchery blog. The Council discussed this issue at a work session in the spring of 2010. Attached is Animal Control Officer Tom Mahan's 2010 memo for that discussion. As you know, many cities have been in the news recently regarding discussions to amend their codes to allow chickens. Some cities have declined to make the change while others, including New Hope and Robbinsdale, have made changes to allow chickens. In New Hope, a permit is required for any resident to have more than 3 chickens. The permit costs $75 and must be renewed annually. No roosters are permitted. Robbinsdale also requires a permit ($25 annual fee with a $50 initial investigation fee) for more than two chickens and the City Council holds a hearing prior to approving the permit. Neighbors within 200 feet of the proposed permit are notified of the hearing. Roosters are not permitted. Minneapolis also requires a permit ($50 application fee, $40 renewal) and also requires written consent of 80% of the occupants of properties within 100 feet of the property of the proposed permit. Animal Control Officer Tom Mahan will be at the March 30 work session to answer the Council's questions. Attach: Missoula Residents with their backyard chickens. Source: http://www.nussoula.com/news/node/226 CRP 580 Spring 2008 University of New Mexico May 7t' 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 ResearchMethods ............................................................................................................. 5 Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 6 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances............................................................... 12 Number of Birds Permitted............................................................................................. 7 Regulation of Roosters.................................................................................................... 8 Pennitsand Fees............................................................................................................. 8 Enclosure Requireinents................................................................................................. 9 NuisanceClauses............................................................................................................ 9 Slaughtering Restrictions.............................................................................................. 10 Distance Restr-ictions.................................................................................................... 10 UniqueRegulations....................................................................................................... 11 Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................... 12 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 14 References........................................................................................................................ 16 AppendixA...................................................................................................................... 17 25 Ordinances Analyzed............................................................................................... 17 AppendixB...................................................................................................................... 18 Sources for 25 Ordinances............................................................................................ 18 AppendixC...................................................................................................................... 19 Exampleordinance........................................................................................................ 19 2 Abstract City councils across the United States and Canada are increasingly being faced with the task of deciding whether or not to allow chicken keeping in residential backyards. In many cases this issue has two opposing sides: those citizens who want to keep chickens for egg production and those citizens who are concerned about the effects of chickens on their communities. This paper provides an analysis of pro -chicken ordinances from 25 cities in an effort to define the components of a just and well functioning chicken ordinance. Of the 25 ordinances, no two were identical but a variety of common regulatory themes were found across cities. Based on these findings, some considerations are suggested when forming an urban chicken keeping ordinance. Introduction "1 can't say that I would have envisioned chickens as a7l issue, but I've heard from a lot of people about them, and it seems like it's something maybe we ought to pay a little attention to. " 1 - Stacy Rye, Missoula City Councilwoman It's happening right now in cities across the United States and Canada. Community members are organizing themselves into groups and approaching their city councils about an important urban planning issue: chicken keeping in the city. This question of whether or not cities should allow backyard chicken keeping has increased substantially over the past 5 years as citizens become more interested in participating in their own food production. The issue has appeared recently before city councils in MissoulaZ, Halifax3, and Madison 4, and a case is currently pending in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In many cases this interest in backyard chicken keeping has been met with much opposition and city councils often do not know how to begin approaching the issue. The recent increase in urban backyard chicken keeping has come about for three main reasons. First, the local food movement itself has become very popular which has sparked a new interest for many in backyard food production. Since chickens are one of the smaller protein producers, they fit well into a backyard food production model. Second, rising energy and transportation costs have caused concern over increases in food costs, and backyard eggs offer a cheaper solution as they do not have to travel far to reach the plate. Lastly, many citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about food safety, and with meat recalls and other animal industry issues in the news, backyard chickens offer many a safer solution. For these reasons, backyard chickens have become 1 Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available online at http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 ' Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_squabble/C8/L8/ 3 CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc. ca/consumer/story/2008/02/ 12/chicicen-report.html 4 Harrison -Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008. 5 Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor (ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008. II increasingly popular, but not everyone likes the idea of chickens living in their neighborhood. There are generally two sides to the chicken keeping issue: those who are for allowing Gallus doiazesticus in residential backyards, and those who are opposed. There are a variety of reasons why people want to keep chickens, ranging from having a safe source of protein to gaining a closer relationship to the food they consume. Those who are opposed to backyard chickens however, often express concerns about noise, smells, diseases, or the potential for chickens running loose. There is also debate between the two sides as to the appropriateness of chickens in a city environment and if chickens qualify as pets or livestock. Chicken keeping in urban environments is nothing new, but it is now something that needs to be planned for in all major cities and small towns across the United States. As the interest in the local food movement continues to increase, and as citizens become more interested in growing their own food, municipalities will eventually be faced with the issue of regulating backyard chicken keeping within their city limits. Planning for chickens can either be pro -active on the part of the city council and planning staff, or reactionary as citizens will eventually bring the issue to city hall. Municipalities often do not know how to approach the chicken keeping issue, and this paper serves to provide some insight through an analysis of urban chicken ordinances from across the United States. Research Methods The main goal of this paper was to analyze how residential backyard chicken keeping is regulated through the examination of chicken ordinances from a variety of cities. To achieve this, data was gathered through the examination of residential chicken ordinances, as well as through a variety of interviews, newspaper articles, video footage, and other resources. Residential chicken ordinances from over 30 cities were gathered, however only 25 of the cities allowed the keeping of chickens, so only those were used in the analysis (see 5 Appendix A). The ordinances were sourced from city web sites, online web ordinance databases, and other online sources (see Appendix B). In a few instances calls were made to city planning departments to verify language in the ordinances. Interviews were conducted with the following city officials, urban chicken keepers, and urban food/gardening community organizations: C� t) 11:1 ® Steve Kunselman, City Councilor (ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. He proposed pro -chicken ordinances for Ann Arbor, which are being voted on in May of 2008. Thomas Kriese: An urban chicken keeper in Redwood, CA and writer about urban chickens at http://myurbanchicl,,ens.blogspot.com/ Dennis Harrison -Noonan, urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. He was involved in the adoption of pro -chicken ordinances for Madison. Debra Lippoldt, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR These interviews served to provide personal insights into urban chicken keeping, stakeholder positions, and the urban chicken movement. The interviews were also crucial in receiving feedback about chicken ordinances and the process involved in legalizing chicken keeping. Analysis Of the 25 cities evaluated, no two were identical in their restrictions and allowances (see chart of detailed findings in Appendix A). There were, however, common regulatory themes that emerged from the set evaluated. These common themes are as follows: C, 13 The number of birds permitted per household 13 The regulation of roosters ® Permits and fees required for keeping chickens ® Chicken enclosure/containment restrictions 13 Nuisance clauses related to chickens M Slaughtering restrictions B Coop distance restrictions in relation to homes or property lines The findings of the above commonalities, as well as unique regulations that emerged, are discussed in detail below. The case and accessibility of finding the ordinances is also discussed. 0 Number of Birds Permitted Of the 25 cities evaluated, only 6 had unclear (or not specifically stated) regulations on the numbers of birds permitted, while 13 stated a specific number of birds. Of the remaining, 3 cities used lot size to determine the number of chickens permitted, 2 cities used distance from property lines as a deteimining factor, and 1 city placed no limit on the number of chickens allowed. Over half of the cities evaluated stated a specific number of allowable chickens, which ranged from 2 to 25 birds. The most common number of birds permitted was either 3 or 4 birds, which occurred in 8 cities. The most common number of birds permitted was 3 or 4, which will supply on average between 1 and 2 dozen eggs per week. Depending on the size of the family in the household, this may be sufficient. In some cases however, 3 to 4 birds may not be enough for larger family sizes or allow for giving away eggs to neighbors. In cities where it is legal to sell your eggs at farmers markets, 3 or 4 buds would not be sufficient. So what is a good number of chickens to allow in residential backyards for home consumption? Thomas Kriese, an urban chicken keeper who writes online about chicken keeping and ordinances, feels that no more than 6 birds should be permitted. "That's approximately 3 dozen eggs a week which is a LOT. of eggs to consume, plus that's a lot of food to go through, and excrement to clean up," he stated in a personal correspondence.6 The answer of how many birds to allow is not an easy one, as other factors such as average property sizes and controlling for nuisances should be considered. A good example of how to address the issue surrounding the number of birds is Portland, Oregon's chicken ordinance. Portland allows the keeping of 3 birds per household; however you are allowed to apply for a permit to keep more (See Appendix A). In this case the ordinance is flexible, as a sufficient number of birds are permitted outright, and those wishing to keep more can apply to do so. 6 Kriese, Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ 7 Regulati077 of Roosters The regulations regarding roosters were unclear in 14 cities and in 7 cities the keeping of roosters was not permitted. Of the remaining 4 in which the keeping of roosters was permitted, I city allowed roosters if kept a certain distance from neighbors residences, I allowed roosters only under 4 months of age, I allowed a single rooster per household, and 1 placed no restrictions. Many cities choose to not allow the keeping of roosters, as neighbors often complain about the crowing which can occur at any hour of the day. Since one of the main reasons people choose to keep chickens is for the eggs, which roosters do not provide, it is generally accepted to only allow hens. L-1 the case of Albuquerque, New Mexico, I tl� - p rooster is allowed per household but it is still subject to noise ordinances (see Appendix A). So in this case, you can keep your rooster if your neighbors do not mind the crowing. This does allow people to have more choice, however it can also increase the costs associated with enforcing noise complaints. Permits and Fees The regulation of chickens through city permits and fees was unclear in 11 of the cities evaluated, while 4 required no permits or associated fees, and 10 required permits, fees, or both. The fees ranged from $5.00 to $40.00, and were either 1 time fees or annual fees. Of the 10 that required permits/fees, 3 required permits only if the number of birds exceeded a set amount which ranged from 3 to 6 birds. In two instances, it is also required that the birds be registered with the state department of agriculture. Requiring a permit for chickens is no different than requiring one for dogs and cats, which is the case in most cities. From the perspective of affordable egg production however, attaching a large fee to the permit undermines that purpose. If a fee is too steep in price, it can exclude lower income populations from keeping chickens by increasing the costs of egg production. Fees may be necessary however to cover the associated costs for the municipality to regulate chickens. Another option, which was the approach of 3 cities, was to allow a certain number of birds with no permit/fee required, and anything P-9 above that required a permit/fee. This allows equal participation and lowered costs, while still providing revenue for the regulation of larger bird populations. Enclosure Requirements In 9 cities the ordinances were unclear in regards to enclosure requirements or the allowance of free roaming chickens. Of the remaining, 2 had no restrictions and 14 required that chickens be enclosed and were not permitted to "run at large". In one case, the approval of a coop building plan and use of certain materials was required. Over half of the cities evaluated required that chickens be enclosed, and this regulation can help to alleviate the concerns of neighbors. Many chicken keepers want to keep their chickens confined in a coop and outdoor run, as this helps to protect them from predators. However, it is very restrictive to require confinement of chickens at all times, as many keepers enjoy watching their chickens free range about the yard. Just as there are regulations for leashing your dog, so too could there be regulation for only allowing chickens to roam in their own yard. Requiring a building permit with specific material requirements, is also restrictive to lower income populations, and takes away from the sustainability of keeping chickens for eggs. In many cases, chicken coops are built with scrap materials and suit the design needs of the owner. Requiring a specific design or materials takes those choices away from the chicken keeper. Coops should be treated similar to dog houses, which are generally not subject to this type of regulation. Nuisance Clauses There were a variety of nuisance regulations stated in 17 of the cities evaluated, while the remaining 8 cities had unclear nuisance regulations. The nuisances that were stated in the 17 ordinances included one or more of the following: noise, smells, public health concerns, attracting flies and rodents, and cleanliness of coops/disposal of manure. Chicken keeping alone does not cause the nuisances listed above, but rather they result from improper care and maintenance which can sometimes occur. D A properly shaped ordinance can prevent potential nuisances by establishing clear guidelines for chicken care and maintenance, such as only allowing smaller sized flocks and not permitting roosters. An active community led education campaign, such as chicken keeping classes and coup tours, is another way in which to educate the public to ensure proper care and reduce the potential for nuisances. In many cities, chicken keeping community organizations have helped to educate the public on how to properly keep chickens within the limits of the law, thereby reducing nuisances and complaints. Slaughtering Restrictions Regulations regarding the slaughtering of chickens in residential areas were unclear in 19 of the cities evaluated. Of the remaining, 4 allowed slaughtering of chickens while 2 stated it was illegal to do so. This regulatory theme had the highest level of unknowns, most likely due to the issue not being included in the ordinance, or it being stated in another section of the general animal ordinances, and not referring specifically to chickens. Although slaughtering chickens within city limits seems gruesome to some, others may wish to slaughter their birds for meat. Rogers, Arkansas for example, only allows the slaughtering to take place inside (Appendix Q, which could help prevent neighbor complaints about the process. Allowing, for slaughtering however, may also have its benefits, such as being a solution to aging urban chickens that no longer produce eggs. Distance Restrictions Distance restrictions between the location of the chicken coop and property lines, or coop and nearby residences, were stated in 16 of the ordinances evaluated. There were no restrictions in 3 of the ordinances and 5 were unclear. Of the 16 with distance restrictions, 12 were distances required from residences, while 3 were distances required from property lines. The distance required from property lines ranged from 10 to 90 feet, while the distances from residences ranged from 20 to 50 feet. If a city chooses to have distance restrictions, the average lot sizes need to be taken into consideration. For example, Spokane, WA has a property line distance restriction of 90 10 feet (see Appendix A), which may be impossible to achieve in many residential yards. This large of a requirement would prevent many people from keeping chickens. The lower distance requirements, such as 10 or 20 feet are more feasible to achieve for those with smaller lot sizes. Distance requirements to neighboring homes (vs. property lines) are also easier achieve as the distance considers part of the neighbors property in addition to the chicken keepers property. Unique Regulations All 25 ordinances evaluated had some combination of the above common themes, but there were also some unique regulations that one (or a few) cities had related to residential chicken keeping. These unique regulations are as follows: ® Chicken feed must be stored in rat proof containers © Pro -chicken regulations are on a 1 -year trial basis with only a set number of permits issued until the yearly re-evaluation. 13 For every additional 1,000 sq. feet of property above a set minimum, additional chicken may be added to the property. The allowance of chickens in multi -family zoned areas (allowance in single family zoning is most common) ® Coops must be mobile to protect turf and prevent the build up of pathogens and waste. Chickens must be provided with veterinary care if ill or injured ® Minimum square footage requirements per bird for coop/enclosure The unique regulations listed offer some innovative solutions to possible issues such as pests and waste, as well as defining minimum space and health care standards for chickens. Some of these regulations also allow for more flexibility, such as extending the right to keep chickens to those living in multi -family dwelling units or allowing more birds on larger property sizes. In the case of Portland, ME, the permitting of chickens is on a trial basis, which may be a good option if a city wants to reevaluate residential chicken keeping after a certain time frame. 11 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances Of the 25 pro -chicken ordinances, very few were actually easy to locate. In most cases, pages of code had to be searched in order to find the regulation and even then the chicken ordinances were often vague, incomplete, or regulations were spread throughout multiple sections of the code. This is an issue that should be considered, as unclear or hard to find ordinances can only lead to increased non-compliance. The most easily accessible chicken ordinances were those specifically stated on city web pages, and those found through websites and literature from urban gardening organizations or community groups. One example of easily accessible ordinances is that of Rogers, Arkansas (Appendix Q. Their chicken ordinance is not only easily accessible directly from the city website, but it is also clear and comprehensive. A clearly stated and easily accessible ordinance allows resident to know how they can keep chickens within the limits of the law, which can reduce complaints and other issues related to non- compliance. Findings and Recommendations "Issues such as rodent control are areal coaacern and the ordinance eani have a. positive influence ora keeping an. already urban issue from being exacerbated any more than it already is". - Debra Lippoldt, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR7 The original question for this paper was "What is a good urban chicken ordinance?" This was based on the idea of examining a variety of ordinances and then singling out those that were better than most and could serve as an example. After having conducted the analysis however, the question was changed to "What are the good components and considerations that make up a just and functional urban chicken ordinance?" There is no superior "one size fits all" ordinance to regulate urban chickens, as each city has different physical, environmental, social, and political needs. Although each ordinance will be different from one city to the next, a pro -chicken ordinance should be built upon the following considerations: 7 Lippoldt, Debra, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8, 2008. 12 ® It satisfies the needs of most stakeholder groups and acknowledges that some stakeholders on both sides of the issue will be unwilling to compromise • It does not discriminate against certain populations, such as those of lower incomes who can not afford high permitting fees, or those with smaller property sizes • It allows for flexibility and provides choice, such as giving chicken keepers the right to choose their own coop design and building materials ® It allows for citizen input and participation in the ordinance forming process to assure that the ordinance fits the needs of , and is supported by the community ® It recognizes the role chickens can play in developing a more sustainable urban environment It recognizes the importance of the ordinance being clearly stated and easily accessible to the public, which will help ensure compliance and reduce violations. The general considerations above are a good compliment to the specific allowances that each municipality chooses to fit its needs and that of its citizens. These specifics however can be more difficult to choose and looking to other cities as examples can provide insight into the best possible choices. The evaluation of 25 different chicken ordinances showed a wide spectrum of choices that municipalities have made in the regulating of chickens. Looking at the number of chickens permitted, for example, cities ranged anywhere from 2 chickens to unlimited chickens. Only allowing for 2 chickens may not be an ideal choice, as they are social creatures and if one were to become ill an die, only one chicken would be left. Two chickens also do not produce enough eggs for a larger sized family. On the other hand, allowing for unlimited chickens may mean increased nuisance enforcement, or allowing for that many chickens may be met with increased public opposition. Often the average allowances found (not the most extremes) are the best choices of an example regulation for other cities to look to when considering the formation of their own chicken ordinance. In the case of the cities evaluated, the most common allowance was 4 to 6 birds, which can provide enough eggs for a family and does not highly increase the potential for nuisances. It also allows for a more sustained population if a bird becomes ill and dies. 13 Another example of the middle ground being a good option would be permitting and fees for keeping chickens. In some cities there were high fees for permitting, while in others no fee or permit was required. A few cities, which only required permits and fees if you have over a certain number of birds, show a good middle ground for how to permit chickens. That model allows for citizens to keep a certain number of chickens without added costs, while also creating revenue for enforcement and regulation when people choose to exceed that amount. Many cities are concerned over increased costs if chicken keeping is legalized, and this is one way to alleviate those concerns while still allowing citizens to keep chickens. In some of the regulatory themes, such as in the examples above, the middle ground does provide a choice which can alleviate concerns while still allowing for the keeping of chickens. Other regulatory themes, such as the slaughtering of chickens, may come down to more of a yes of no answer, as was seen in many of the cities. In either case, if a city is going to adopt a pro -chicken ordinance, the most important part is to first allow for the keeping of chickens, with the understanding that the ordinance can be revisited and changed at a future time. Allowing for the keeping of chickens is the best way to see if the concerns surrounding chicken keeping ever come to fruition, and the ordinance can then be adjusted accordingly. In many cases, cities adopt a more restrictive ordinance as that is what will pass public approval and city council. Then as time passes with few complaints or nuisances, those regulations become more relaxed and tailored specifically to the needs of the city and its residents. Conclusions "It seems that if we want to be a town. that does its part for sustainabilily, this is something we ought to consider. 1 think we want to allow folks to use their good judgment and move toward more sustainable food practices. " - Mayor John Engen, Missoula, MT 8 Many cities and towns are now looking at how they can be more sustainable, and allowing urban chickens is one step towards that goal of increased sustainability. Not 6 Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. Available online at hnp://www.missoula.con-i/news/node/226 14 only can backyard chickens provide residents with a fresh and important food source, but they also bring about an increased awareness of our relationship to the food cycle. By forming a just and well thought out pro -chicken ordinance, cities can allow citizens the right to keep chickens while also addressing the concerns of other stakeholder groups. With that said, city councils should approach the issue of urban chicken keeping with a "how" rather than a "yes" or "no", as a growing list of pro -chicken cities across the nation shows that it can be done successfully. 15 References (References for 25 City Ordinances: See Appendix B) CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.html Harrison -Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008. Just Food. City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://wwwjustfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/ Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor (ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008. Kriese, Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.conV Lippoldt, Debra. Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8, 2008. Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicicen_ squabble/C8/L8/ Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available online at http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 16 Appendix A 25 Ordinances Analyzed City/State # of birds Roosters Permit/ Enclosure Nuisance Slaughter Property line Details or unique permitted allowed permit cost required clause permitted restrictions regulations Los Angeles, unclear only if 100 unclear unclear Yes unclear 20 ft from owners CA ft from home, 35 ft from neiqhbors neighbors Rogers, AK 4 No $5/yr Yes Yes inside only 25 ft from neighbors house Keywest, FL unclear Yes None Yes Yes No No Can't use droppings as fertilizer, feed must be stored in rat proof containers Topeka, KS unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from neighbors house South 6 No $25/yr Yes, Yes unclear Yes On trial basis till Portland, ME building November 2008, only permit 20 permits issued till required vearl v evaluation Madison, W1 4 No $6/yr Yes Yes No 25 ft from neighbors house New York, No limit No Yes No Yes unclear No NY Albuquerque, 15 1 per None No Yes Yes No NM household Portland, OR 3 without unclear $31 onetime Yes Yes unclear unclear permit fee for 4 + I Seattle, WA 3 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 10 ft from property 1 additional chicken per line 1,000 sq ft of property above minimum Spokane, WA 1 per unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 90 ft from property Chickens allowed in 2,000 sq ft line multi -family zoned areas of land San Antonio, property unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum 5 birds allowed 20 ft TX line from another from home, 12 birds at dependent dwelling 50 ft, 50 birds at 150 ft Honolulu, Hl 2 unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Oakland, CA unclear No unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum from another dwelling Louis, MO 4 max. unclear $40 permit unclear unclear unclear unclear without for more than permit 4 birds San Diego, 25 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 50 ft from Feed must be stored in CA neiqhbors house rat roof container San Jose, CA dependent only permit Yes unclear unclear Ranges from 0 to <15 ft = 0 birds allowed, on coop to roosters < needed for 6 50 ft, determines 15 to 20 ft = 4 birds, etc, property 4 months or more birds # of birds up to 50 ft = 25 birds line old Austin, TX unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Yes 50 ft from neighbors house Memphis, TN unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes Yes unclear Feed must be stored in rat proof container Ft. Worth, TX based on unclear No Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from <1/2 acre = 12 birds, lot size neighbors house >1/2 acre = 25 birds Baltimore, 4 unclear Must register Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from Coops must be mobile MD with animal neighbors house to prevent waste build control and up, minimum 2 sq Dept of Ag. ft/bird, Charlotte, NC based on unclear $40/yr Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from property minimum 4 sq. ft/bird, lot size line no more than 20/acre Missoula, MT 6 No $15 permit Yes Yes unclear 20 ft from Feed must be stored in neighbors house rat proof container Boise, ID 3 No unclear Yes unclear unclear unclear San 4 Unclear No Yes Yes unclear 20 feet from door Francisco, or window of CA residence 17 Appendix B Sources for 25 Ordinances City/State Source for Ordinance Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Animal Services. http://www.laanimalservices.org/permitbook.pdf Rogers, AK Ordinance No. 06-100 http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp Keywest, FL Part 2, Title 5 Section 62 www.keywestchickens.com/city Topeka,KS Section 18-291 www.municode.com South Portland, ME Chapter 3Article 2 Section 3 http://www.southportland.org/index.asp?Type=B—LIST&SEC=193286E1 E-9FF8- 40D2-AC30-8840DEB23A291 Madison, WI http://www.madcitychickens.com/ and www.municode.com New York, NY Just Food's City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at hftp://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/ Albuquerque, NM City ordinance chapter 9, article 2, part 4,.§ 9-2-4-3, c-3 http://www.amlegal.com/albuquergue—nm/ Portland, OR Ordinance 13.05.015 http://www.port]andonIine.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=28228#cid 13497 Seattle, WA Ordinance 122311 section 23 www.seaftleurbanfarmco.com/chickens Spokane, WA Title 17 Chapter 17C.310 Section 170.310.100 http://www.spokanecity.org/services/doc ments/smc/?Section=17C.310.100 San Antonio, TX Municipal code 10-112, Keeping of farm animals www.sanantonio.gov/animalcare/healthcode.asp Honolulu, HI Chapter 7 Section 7-2.5 www.honolulu.gov/refs/roh Oakland, CA Ordinance 6.04.320 www.oakiandanimalservices.org St. Louis, MO Ordinance 62853-7 www.sipl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/tl 02001.htm San Diego, CA Ordinance 42.0709 http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/municodechapterO4/chO4artO2divisionO7.pdf San Jose, CA Ordinance 7.04.030, 140, &150 www.sanjoseanimals.com/ordinances/sjmc7.04.htm Austin, TX Title 3 Chapter 3-2 www.amlegal.com/Austin-nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/austin Memphis, TN Title 9Chapter 9-80-2, 9-68-7 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com Ft. Worth, TX Section 11A -22a www.municode.com Baltimore, MD Baltimore City Health Code Title 2-106; Title 10, Subtitles 1 and 3 www.baltimorehealth.org/press/2007 02 02 AnimalRegs.pdf Charlotte, NC Section 3-102 http://www.charmeck.org/departments/animal+control/local+ordinances/permits/htm and municode.com Missoula, MT Ordinance Chapter 6 Section 6-12 ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2007/2007-12- 17/Chicken Ordinance. df Boise, ID Chapter 6 Section 14 http://www.cityofboise.org/city__clerk/citycode/0614.pdf and http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.htmI San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Health Code Section 37 1 http://sfgov.org/site/acc—page.asp?id=5476 111 Appendix C Example ordinance Rogers, AK ORDINANCE NO. 06- 71.00 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONTAINMENT OF FOWL AND OTHER ANIMALS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ROGERS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF ROGERS, ARKANSAS: Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or allow any domesticated fowl to run at large within the corporate limits of the city. It shall be lawful to keep poultry flocks of any size in A -I zones of the city, so long as they are confined. Section 2: It shall be lawful for any person to keep, permit or allow any fowl within the corporate limits of the city in all other zones, except A -I, under the following terms and conditions: a. No more than four (4) hens shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling. No birds shall be allowed in multi -family complexes, including duplexes. b. No roosters shall be allowed. c. There shall be no outside slaughtering of birds. d. All fowl must be kept at all times in a secure enclosure constructed at least two feet above the surface of the ground. e. Enclosures must be situated at least 25 feet from the nearest neighbor's residence. f. Enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors. g. Persons wishing to keep fowl within the city must obtain a permit from the Office of the City Clerk, after an inspection and approval by the Office of Animal Control, and must pay a $5.00 annual fee. Section 3: The above Section 2 is not intended to apply to the 'ducks and geese in Lake Atalanta Park, nor to indoor birds kept as pets, such as, but not limited to, parrots or parakeets, nor to the lawful transportation of fowl through the corporate limits of the city. Neither shall it apply to poultry kept in areas of the City which are zoned A -I. Section 4: Fowl currently existing in the city shall not be "grandfathered" or permitted to remain after the effective date of this Ordinance; however, owners of the poultry will have 90 days from the effective date to come into compliance with this ordinance. Source: http://www.rogersarlcansas.com/clerk/chl,,ordinance.asp 19 CHTER 70. FOVVILI, F[GEORS, AND OTHER SNAiALL ANIMILALS" �ditor's notte. Ord. 1 -Jo, 2005 -Or -085, §I , adopted Sept.. 23, 2005, amended the title of Ch. 70 to read as herein set out. See also the Code Comparative Table. 7G."[0. Permit requfrad. (a) No person shall anyAtrhere in the city keep, harbor, or maintain care, custody, or control over any small animal or any favvl such as a chicken, turkey, duck, or pigeon, Arithout obtaining a pernnit issued by NAinneapolis Animal Care and Control. (b) The I'Aan-a-ger of NAhnneapolis Arfin-tal Care and Control may grant permit pursuant to this seGtion after the applicant has sought the A171i"LLert consent of at least eighty (80) percent of the occupants of the several descriptions of real estate situated -,10ithin one hundred (100) feet of the applicant's real estate. Such written consent shall be required on the initial -application and as often thereafter as the lKlianager of [,Minneapolis P-Inimal Care and Control deems necessary, (c) No permit shall be granted to keep any animal, fond, or pigeon. vtithin a dwelling unit or part thereof, nor on any real estate which contains three (3) or more dv�elling units. (d) This section shall not apply to dogs, cats, ferrets, or rabbits nor to veterinarians or licensed pet shops or licensed kennels. (=) /Application pplication for pem-Hft. Any person desiring 2 permit. under 'Ll-fis chapter shall make written application to N/iinneapolis Animal Care and Control Approval of application is subject to conditions prescribed by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. Failure to adhere to conditions is cause for cancellation of the perr-nit and/or result in an administrative fine. (f) Duration of4pam-tit. All perrnits issued shall expire on January 31 of the following year after I t_1 its issuance unless sooner revoked. The application fee for such permit shall be fifty dollar,-, ($50.00) which shall be paid at the time of application. The annual renewal fee -hereafter for such permit shall be forty dollars ($40.00). Minneapolis Animal Care and Control v�iill inspect the premise annually or as deemed necessary. (g) Rive -year permit. The fee far a five-year be one hundred fifty dollars 0150.00). All five-year permits issued shall expire on January 31 of the year following the fifth ifth year after its issuance unless sooner revoked. N/linneapolis Animal Care and Control vvifl inspect the premise annually or as deemed necessary. (h) Refusal to grant permit. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control may refuse a permit to keep or maintain animals or fmvl hereunder for failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter, and shall refuse a permit if such animals or fovkll should not be kept upon the premises described in the application for the pen -nit. If any such permit is refused., the fee paid with the application shall be retained by N/linneapolis Animal Care and Control_ (i) Enforcement. Nfiinneapolis Animal Care and Control shall enforce the provisions of this chapter, (Code 1960, As Amend., § 814.010; Ord, of 6-13-75, § 2; Ord. of 3-12-76, § 1: 85 -Or -040, § 1, 2-22-85; 2.005 -Or -085, § 2., 9-23-05, 2006 -Or -143, § 1, 12-22-06; 2009 -Or -189, § 1, 12-18-09) I of—**) 12!9/2010 4:3? 70Reser ved- Edftoys notte. 2006-0--r-143, §§ 2-7, adopted Dec -ember 22,2 y repealed §§- 70.20 through 70,70, -.,vhich pert.ained to: application for permit.,. duration of perri-nit; fee; --Gnditons, for keeping animals orf 1revotion of permit; re!, usal to grant parmit; dispersal of permit fees; and �forcement.. See also -the Code Comparative Table. 2o£2 12MMO 632 B11ag for Murray hricrirurnay Hatchery Eac(-,yard GiIiGken 'I"irlytfts, Part i Plamed m Ajuvl 11, 2010 by Staff and time avain I hear people co--, ntpAaillin;z about the problems tne-v think b a cky a Yl chicken.s ,Ail "a brin,- if all-mved. into One oftb.eir city. Some of the more comnno-n complaints that I hear are noise, si-nell, dLqease, and property values. I don't believe that I have ever been to a meetingC, about- keepirig back yard chielzens t.-Jiere the noise issue has not bee -a bro-light tip at least once. I often hear people. complaining about the potential early mor-ning crow;*' cif a n.earb\rooster. This is a. v e r.\ Valid point, and I too -,,,rcj uld be co n pl a i n i n if a rooster -were walkin g nate u p even' M- L '[,-here are many advantages of morning at 4.-3oAJN1_ especially if I did not hzve to Nvake up until 7-,00ATA or later. C*1 . - I D R L 1-ceeping bact-va rd el icher s. but in.ost urban chicken keepers want to keep backyarrd ch icke-tis for the e ben of Tia, tag an endlIess su pph! of farm fne h eg'LYS. Solution? You do not. need. a rooster to emoy farna fresh eg ,gs every niorning. In fact, some people claimthat hens vU lay better if there is no rooster around to disturib their Pontine. Z - In contrast to roosters, -hens are very quiet and soundlessly sleep through the night. Roosters pHinarilv have tv�.-o jobs, they do Nren, -well. 'J"hey protect and fertilize. Pfau really, onl-v need a rooster ifyou i"rant baby chicks runninz, around in the backyard. I. personally still hate to see cities, ban roosters altogether because there are FA: ays to keep roosters in ari url.)a.-a area quietly and responsibly. NA-bien towns do allo-w, roosters they' Still leave far ostf ore com-olaints about harking dogs, loud. music, and loud rnuf than they do ro crowing. Maybe the 0 1.1 In - town should ban dogs too if they are so concerned about vin -wanted noise! Smell JIS another complaint that is often brought -tip whendiscussing chickens. Yes, chickens can Smell, ust like dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, fish, and e=ven people if not taker care of property. We are. Pat talking about a 5oo-foot long corniviercialchicken house w-ith z5o,000 chickens next door. VNI-e are talking, about six to laying hens in a back-vard setting. There are Mally to rctduce the smell cif your chic], n coop so it will never create a problem. One example -would be putting loo people- in your dining roam for an extended amount of time and see the problems you vti°ill have vs. putting six people in your dining room. 'Most to -w -ns that allo-vv chickens iii -an it th e n ii mberl o six to tvvelve. don't think h at vou have mice a n d rats, outside \7()u r h on -,e ri alt 1) cnv, then voll-,i- - in a fan axeli n. faqy "vorld. Mlarn- clai.-nn that keer'-Hlo attri.wt mWe amJ rats arid think theydon't cxist unt: thechic-kens arrive. Chicken s thernsel-ves don't attract mice and rats. lAice and rats are attracted to a food and water Source. A haclxard chicken feeder is no different than a tvpical -v,-ild bird feeder v, --hen it comes to being a food source IfOr mice and rats. A chicken vraterer is no different than an outside potted plant vrhen it conies to being a N-vater source for inice and rats. Maybethe town should ban w0d bird feeders and potted plant.,, if they are so concei-ned about -nice and rats! About three years ago rrianvvrere asking questions about the risks of 2vi.2rl influenza and keeping back -yard chickens. I always referthem to the Center for Disease. Control (CDC) NVel-.)site 1 ­here it addresses this issue. On the QLrkpage the folloi.)TIng, is posted. Question: \1e have a small flock of chickens. is it safe to keep them? I Answer: Yes, In the "United States there is no need at present to remove a Bock of chickens because of concerns ol'4. 9:19'_010 6:;3 P mguddg an Muen7a.'Phe US. Depmtment potential ina-fection. of pou.1ti-' andr pou'ItT5, priaducts by a-;ian infllue:-4za 1druses and otherhYfousea-qeaqlen , LS. Han-eyo-a rese.arche;d ltely% ho -vv many dbeases cets canj`? ldaybe i -he iown sI.-Lould ban cats too Nth, are so conunmed about Masse! Mank you, Chicken Andy Schneider, better, 1--moul'Csth:cCl.iCimi.he host qf the Bcickyard PoudftW uve-ith the Chicken sperer radib shoub Fdi-7-r-rs AlmmncmT an.d Oze USEGUIMIS Bfo-Securiiyjbr BirdE Progrcr m :h out M CM urr-ay Soff h t i in: 1' (\ �- \i ni v. -- i -., v, r rii 3 a t c I ier) -. c o 4-n Andi 1x. Stilff. -: - This entry v.,es posttedd in GGZn7' Ajljdes. Ihs p-erm-afflnK I I Responses to Backyard Chickrao ffq/ths.. Patti. I 2,abl 311 , 2090 al 3-3B 7111A [J'just had to get rid of in): 'Black Sillde today because he cro,vsvery loud. I have a fevv hens, andthe neighbors haven't complained. but I knev,? it would be a ritatler of time. I covered 1-fis hnus.ev,-ith bLanlCe',A, -,^,hich stopped hirn from cr(Tvong until about garn, but he,.-ould crow -all day. He -,-.�as may pet and 1 iniss hint already~. Eduardo R Maro-n says: A-uptis! 27, 2010 W B25 AM, 1. hve in !Vorth Part., Florida. Last year I had a noel" of 18 hens, no roosters. I built a nice chkl<en coop in an emp,i, lot. I own next to rny house. I have no close neighbors. You could not see or bear the chickens any fin -ie of t.h.e day ar night. - a i -t, 5.- � et d s -1 It ridghbor mm0ained, and before I kn= I had two pc)"11cesquad cars and an arfinmal cont-rol offi5cer (,heoklrig nny erltirc house, ernbarrassing. I s wnvd a nuke by the Al that 1 muM mrnmT the Ch dwri Nap and go rid of aw hens, and the anirld amoil Almr Rdd aw !hat A sus not enivugh that the hens YaTe not phlyWhy there but required ywcof of YNT, I sold Mern. I Ad mU bern M an auction in!vcadia. The cit)- said that H W Brie me -,-,00 d1s. a day if) do riot do vrl-iat I wasL-It or if I have chickens again Kthin 5 yam WM _pUrandr-h-flidren nnis:,ed them terribly, and vie do riot have. the dozen or so eggs evLrv day, 1'\'hat A pity! RWIY F>eth suits: ;-�gusl _>6, 2,110 a, 6,11 PM I have eight chicken=, I -ens, three of thern are roosters v,,ho like to croi-%? v6enever. !\,I'y one neighb-or lady across the street did not even knomr I had any chickens until I mentioned the=m! So they don't particularly seers bothered by them. I've been in this 2 of 4 9nW2MO 632 Biou for Miurray RTrc1A!Urrav Hatch=rjr >­, y a_rd d ia h f ck e.. n A& ytz h sa., Part rt 2 Pu sdon Ajugua Z'Z, 2M t!v 17iC.2;§4UMy SL:Al If 2 o missed przri I q_ftli "R art -I cle. -,ou earl read -11, Eli :J manN people -,Arho oppose thkeeping o e I f ba 17 e, In C yard chicl:ens often :zound off d urini g me.etirgS about dec. ased property values if the c-ity- allov,,s the keeping of backnrard chickejj A[. !can say, is show me the proof. No one has el"er sho-wil up at aback yand chicken meeting that I have ever attended-itilth any'valid proc&that someone got s,o,oc:oless s For Of ors b?c.!,I-�,rdchic,,I-,ens,orth.eta�Nrnthe-�!-LVedIii -)- eir home because one oL b t allowed backvard chickens. Shov,! me the, proc-11. I oflwn 'hear cit -,v afficials asl, ihe questio-ni "Ho -,,v �,vffl enforce the keeping of bacl��.-ard chicl�ens?' Tfyou take, a W ooi look at the lairvs and ord-Inances that are alrep&y In place, I'm villilng to bet there are more than enw.1.0i la vs and ordhnances on the, tool right nowto ec)r e any, problen-ghat would, evr come about b- an im-,sponsible baclkyardl chiclen keener. For example. �what if a rooster is crming at 4:003111? 'W%at if do- v,,as barking at 4.: oc) ay.n or a neighbor was playing loud music at 4: ooam? -W at if a chi Aen get, I c,ose in the nei0i.borhood?v. That if a dog gets loose in the neighborhood? You would not have to N.7 riy about the chicken Mauliv,.; a little girl to death like you volild -vv-ith- a. vicious dog! W-h.at if the chicken ru.n. starts to smell? 'WhIt if do- pen starts to smell? Vvbat if €l. compost bill starts to smell? Vv -hat if a neighbor's gart-mcge starts to smell? You M would address the chicken coinplaint just like any other complaint. Soule towns are requiring that residents get peraiission from their neighbors in order to keep back -yard chiefens. T wonder if tbey- mal -,e their residents get permission from their neighbors in order to leave children, do -1-1, cats, and. motorcycles. all of which can be louder and more destructive than a '7e -,,v backward hens. Do I. dare call, this discrimination against chicken lovers,' I There are many advantages of keeping bac'kyard chickens and the).- include but are not Iiinited too: i. Far -C, fresh c1,g,7 gs In!;ect oc'mirol Fertilizer 7. PeAs 6. Education In fact. chichens are environmentally friendly.17he-) reduce the amount of green house gases depleting the ozone by redu ci_n,c7 your food waste headed to the landfill. They replenish. nutrients to our nutrient depleted soils. They reduce vour need for chemical lawn fertilizers or pest controls and they create a local food source. for families. In Pat Foreman's booh, City Chicks. she wimlains hmfvtowns can actually save taxpayer dollars by apjowm�� their I i _ .... ....... residents tokeep a ffev,- lading liens in the back)tard. 9i I 9!O 10 6:;0 I of 4 To put bacl:y a, rd chicli-eris into pern;ppectiv-e I is -.o:, Ie the. -- Ii U.I. r),, '_ - j arl� - -, da, ha. -1 '1. :a _i poop in .7my front: vard rCP i other neighbor's dogs thcm th4ey have ciiickien po,_,p i -a ni-+` clikken.s. I have mart-, C.at pnints on my ca r irom other neighbofs cats th-en ti ey h2rre ch i61,,,e n ;7_. -uts on t -b eill car �er -oo Do r7s dou barkLi -1 then th ev have e-er fro,n nny chiCkens. .4md I'm a -,ial: -.ed at �i. . am, r-, jore. kr,*.'):­ other niej been avva Urned at 2:ooani from. rri'v sk-nin.g liens. Tliank' you, Cl-tickern IA71hisperer AT ic�y Schneider. be I ter known as the Ch.ft."k-en 'I i�'h fSperer, is 6, Ie host' rafthe Bal-ky a nd Pbu It7-y u;ith thie Chic ke, I I Vhistperer rodo s�h. aliv, con tributor.f-Or J4,66her Earth PvTew-s M a gamne, GHtMlt2g=frie, FfLarrners A 17-i7cm a C', a., I d ncutiorza I spokesperso-i7fior the 1IM-1--A-PPITS Bio-Seu.-L!T-ittyR)r Bird, s Progr a. Tn. , Ahout McMttrra)• Staff 0 This entry vias pm.",ed in Gue:.t ivfides. Rkolarnerk rhe p-a-.mralink 13 Resp.Gnses to Backyard Chicken IKyths, Part 2 FI i 7. a b e tT i says: August 31, 2010 at -1, 24 A!Vt Isn't that the truth! People seem to look dmvn their long dignified noses at folks that oN-trn poultn! and really walk in ignor­anC:e when it comes to care and raising of these vvotiderful creatures. 1. appreciate, the s-cimulating comimenils, Air. Chicken VVhisperer. Tjjan'lc you. F" ep ! y Nat,alje Ro�,�-e says: Auuu­', 30. 2010 at 3 4,5 PWI li should be printed off and gi-ven to iLvei-v local lav,-mak.er in Canada, too. People need icl learn the facts keeping chickens, Tiol just Succur."Ib to hyste;i3t Fx:vllent dei "!III"Intl of libe rn-'-It n MMIKS. Nellie Ravago snits: '7 0 0 24' 1, 2D'I at I 1 j sur elv agree %,ith all the things you said regarding backyard chickens. 'AIN. husband and I started few chicly in the bachNfard almost six years a -go . Nov., w -e have more 'than 6o chickens and are enjoying the fresh brotvn ergs that: ve gather everyday. If only soiree people will inake time to start this venture, aside from saving money 'to buy eje I I - ,gs from the store, i ou'll knov', 'for a fact that yours is not contaminated Mth salmonella. You can share some em,s t0 dour farnfly and friends. Reply n of4 9/19`2010 6:'0 ry ��-1..v��_- /' 'y 1 X. J "Service with Compassion and Integrity" TO: "Arne Norris, City Manager FROM: Tom Mahan, Animal Control Officer DATE: April 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Keeping of fowl in Crystal As requested by a citizen at the April 6, 2010, City Council meeting we have begun the process to consider revising city ordinance to allow residents to keep chickens. My general concerns regarding permitting ownership within Crystal of non -caged fowl (including, but not limited to: ducks, geese, swans, chickens, turkeys, Guinea fowl, pheasants, quail and pigeons) include: the sanitary conditions under which the animals will live; the amount of time police department staff may have to spend handling nuisance complaints; owners who wish to release their birds to the wild after raising them; the number of birds allowed at each residence; where will we `draw the line' in the number and type of birds kept?; if permits are issued, the amount of time the animal control staff will have to spend inspecting permitted properties; staff, attorney and court time spent prosecuting ordinance violators. Many people may not realize or understand the special needs of farm -type fowl. Not meeting these needs may be considered as intentional or unintentional cruelty and may result in neglect and/or animal welfare cases. Minnesota State Statute Chapter 343 applies to cruelty cases involving all animals, however, there are no set standards of care for farm -type fowl that are kept by private owners. This lack of direction is a cause for concern if any complaints lead to legal proceedings. In some instances more care must be given to keeping farrm-type fowl than in keeping cats and dogs. The following is a listing of basic needs. Food and Water ® Water - access to clean, potable water 24 hours a day. It's very important that the water be clean and should be changed throughout the day. Waterfowl must be provided with suitable bathing water in order to have exercise and to maintain proper feather hygiene. Food - wholesome breed -specific feed, free from contamination and mold (which is highly poisonous to birds), and provided in sufficient quantity at least once per day. Food must be provided in sanitary containers placed so as to minimize contamination but provide free access to the bird. Garbage in the form of kitchen scraps should not be fed since this may lead to illness in the birds and attracting wild animals such as rodents, skul-lks and raccoons. Messy feeders can create nuisance conditions with uneaten and spilled feed. Spilled food could rot and cause health problems (Aspergillosis) in the lungs of the non -caged fowl and in people. Rodents and other wild animals may be attracted to the feed. A University of Mimiesota Extension Fact Sheet (Good Management Practices for Salmonella Risk Reduction in the Production of Table Eggs, 1992, #BV -06054) noted that bacteria in the genus Salmonella, can be transmitted through rodent feces to the pet birds. Housing ® Must be provided to protect the birds from adverse weather and predators Birds should be kept in fenced yards to prevent roaming or in cages, which should be large enough to allow them to make normal postural adjustments. In general, three to six square feet of space should be provided for each adult bird (Duckhealth.com). Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior. ® Cages should be well ventilated and well insulated from the elements. ("Lean-to's" are sufficient if adequate protection is provided.) ® Cages should not be stacked on top of each other, unless metal -type trays are provided in between each cage to collect excrement. ® Cages should be cleaned at least once daily. ® Dead birds should be removed immediately and disposed of properly. ® Management of litter and yards. It is necessary to take extra measures to maintain litter on floors inside sheltered areas in a dry condition. This will require regular addition of fresh bedding, on top of the bedding that has become soiled or wet, and when necessary, cleaning out the old litter and replacing it with fresh litter. Waterers should be located outside, as far away from the house as possible. This will help reduce tracking water to the litter. During periods when temperatures drop below freezing, water must be provided indoors. Duck yards should be maintained in a clean condition by removing the upper few inches of soil and replacing it with clean soil (preferably sand) whenever necessary. Old litter must be removed by bagging for residential garbage collection. Another option is create a mulch pile with the old litter, but this can create a new set of problems if not carefully managed. Temperature ® Birds should be kept in areas not more than 80 degrees Fahrenheit (chickens develop heat stress easily which can kill them) but not less than 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Some birds do not tolerate cold weather well and may not be kept indoors for health reasons. Poor management practices can be common in the hobby -type ownership of non -caged fowl. Captive birds in particular can be vectors for several different isolates of Salmonella, Chlainydiosis (Psittacosis), histoplasmosis, avian influenza, and several other zoonotic diseases. This is due to their natural habits of spilling food and defecating in any area of their enclosures. Owners need to pay close attention to the cleanliness of the birds, the enclosures and themselves and lalow how to recognize sick birds. Unlike cats and dogs, birds do not show signs of illness until they are well along in their illness. Will owners of the non -caged fowl seek out veterinary care for these birds as they might for a cat or dog? Owners of non -caged fowl must adhere to the city nuisance ordinances which prohibit excessive noise, feces and pets running at large. Animal Control receives complaints every year of roosters crowing. Other species of non -caged fowl, particularly Guinea fowl and some geese, can be even louder than chickens. How far is the city willing to go through the court system to prosecute a bird owner for having loud birds? The city ordinances do not even have specifics governing dog and cat owners in regards to what is excessive noise or excessive amount of feces. What would be the impact on property value/sales and neighbor relations? Is the council willing to allow poultry to be raised for consumption? Will owners be allowed to slaughter their birds onsite? Will an owner be allowed to sell eggs and/or chicks out of their home? Most of the municipalities in Hennepin County prohibit the keeping of non -caged fowl. The municipalities that do allow for them either have minimum lot sizes or maintain a permitting system. An applicant wishing to have non -caged fowl in Minneapolis must have written consent from 80% of the residents that live within 100 feet of the applicant's property. The applicant can have as many birds of any type as are listed on the application and undersigned by the neighbors. Permits are not given to properties that have more than 3 housing units. The Minneapolis Commissioner of Health makes the decision on a standard of conditions in which the birds live. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control inspects about 90 permit applications per year. The cost of the permit in Minneapolis is $10 per year. The City of Robbinsdale's permit system allows no more than two chickens, turkeys or pigeons per residence. There is an initial investigation fee of $50 and a yearly permit fee of $25. The applicant must attend a Robbinsdale council hearing for the initial application. The residents living within 200 feet of the applicant must be notified of the council hearing. There is a $1 fee per household to which the notification is mailed. Each year I am involved in cases in which a family is raising ducks or pheasants that they plan to release to the wild. Their wish is that their children will have the experience of raising an animal. I strongly discourage this practice for these reasons: the birds are not raised in such a way that teaches them how to survive in the wild by finding food and shelter and avoiding predators; these birds may breed with wild birds and produce hybrids which are not suited for living in the wild and/or negatively impact the gene pool of the wild stock; and they may introduce a disease into the wild population. The following is a list of issues associated with the keeping of ducks and other non -caged fowl (includes, but is not limited to: ducks, geese, swans, chickens, turkeys, Guinea fowl, pheasants, quail and pigeons). ® Can be considered poultry (fowl). ® Winter shelter requirements- the birds do not tolerate cold weather well and may not be kept indoors for health reasons. ® Can be noisy (especially in mornings). ® Many people may not realize or understand the special needs of fowl that may result in neglect and/or animal welfare cases. ® Disposal of droppings? ® Disposal of bedding? ® Messy feeders that can create nuisance conditions with uneaten feed. Spilled food could rot and cause health problems (Aspergillosis) in the fowl and in people. ® Zoning issues have prohibited the keeping of fowl for many years. ® Can be vector for several different isolates of Salmonella , Chlamydiosis (Psittacosis), histoplasmosis, avian influenza, and several other zoonotic diseases. ® What would be the impact on property value/sales and neighbor relations? ® Fowl will roam roam -how are they to be contained? ® Fowl need regular exercise and space to do so. • Is the cotuicil willing to allow fowl to be raised for consumption? ® Is the council willing to allow fowl to be raised in multiple family units? ® What will be the ordinances for breeders? The following is a list of suggestions for changes to Ciystal Ordinance 910. 1. Make no changes. 2. Clarify the wording to specify that the keeping of fowl is not allowed in the city: It is unlawfiil to keep or harbor an animal or fowl, except dogs, cats and other similar household pets, within any district of the city zoned residential (Crystal 910.39). 3. Allow fowl with no restrictions. 4. Limit the number or types of fowl. 5. Limit the number of fowl and create a permit system: It is unlawfiil to keep or maintain roosters, bees or a horse, cow, pony, mule, donkey, pig, goat, sheep, or other large domesticated animal, other than a dog, without first having obtained a permit therefor. It is unlawfiil to keep or maintain more than two chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pigeons, rabbits, chinchillas, minks, nutrias, or guinea pigs without first having obtained a permit therefor. (Robbinsdale 915.13 Subdivision 1). TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager SUBJECT: Complaint about Deer Last spring I received several complaints regarding deer eating plants in the Fair and Bassett Creek neighborhoods. In response, Animal Control Officer Tom Mahan prepared information for the website about deer and the risks of feeding deer and leaving salt licks out. This spring I received a request from a resident of south Crystal that the Council consider deer management; attached is the email I received. Since January 1, 2010, police calls show 13 deer/auto crashes. About half the crashes were near the airport and the other half were south of 36th Avenue. In recent years, several neighboring ciites hired contractors to thin deer herds. In 2009, Golden Valley paid a contractor $270 per deer and a DNR permit is required. At its March 30 work session, the Council should discuss whether any further information is needed or action is necessary. Attach: Anne Norris From: Tom Schmitt - --- -""- I Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:07 AM To: Anne Norris Subject: Deer Population Control Dear Ms. Norris, I was wondering if the prospect of deer population control has come up in the past during your tenure with the city of Crystal. I have seen approximately 16 deer in the Edgewood right of way this year. It really is reaching a critical level, both for the health of the deer population, and as a hazard to traffic and public safety. Last spring some were starved to death; I can only imagine what will happen this year. I spoke with the DNR wildlife manager for this district(Brian Lueth ?sp) and he informed me that since many communities had enacted no firearms discharge ordinances, what the DNR could do was limited. Mr. Lueth indicated that he would be willing to help on this issue as he believes that some method of population control other than traffic accidents is necessary for the health of the metro deer population. I would like to know if the city administration can address this independently, or if this is something that I will have to bring before the City Council. Thank you for your consideration of this problem. Regards, Tom Schmitt TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager SUBJECT: April 19 Council Meeting Date When the Council was setting its 2011 meeting calendar, there was discussion about the April 19 meeting. The Passover holiday begins at the end of sunset on April 18 (sundown is at approximately 8:02 p.m.) According to Jewish law, sunset is 20 minutes — 1 hour after sundown. The Council could move its meeting to Monday, April 18, and try to be done by 8:30 and have no work session after that meeting. The Council should decide whether to move the April 19 meeting in observance of the Passover holiday. Any meeting date change would be included on the April 5 Council meeting consent agenda.