Anoka City Council

November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 1 of 16 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANOKA CITY COUNCIL ANOKA CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 15, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rice called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:07 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present at roll call: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver, and Wesp. Staff present: City Manager Greg Lee; Community Development Director Doug Borglund; Director of Public Services Mark Anderson; Finance Director Brenda Springer; Engineering Technician Ben Nelson; Electric Utility Director Greg Geiger; City Planner Clark Palmer; Police Captain Andy Youngquist; and City Attorney Scott Baumgartner. Absent at roll call: None. 3. COUNCIL MINUTES 3.1 September 27, 2021, Worksession and November 1, 2021, Regular Meeting. Councilmember Skogquist requested a correction to Page 3 of the September 27 Worksession to Garfield Street. Motion by Councilmember Skogquist, seconded by Councilmember Weaver, to waive the reading and approve the September 27, 2021, Worksession and November 1, 2021, Regular Meeting as corrected. Vote taken. All ayes. Motion carried. 4. OPEN FORUM 4.1 Police Activity Update. Police Captain Andy Youngquist shared a department update that included a landlord/manager meeting and Home Alone Safety class with the COPPS Unit, recent police incident that involved the loss of hockey equipment, and how both police and fire assisted the Minnesota Department of Corrections on an outstanding felony warrant arrest that resulted in the suspect entering the November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 2 of 16 Mississippi River. He shared about the department’s transition to 12-hour patrol schedules beginning in 2022, traffic complaint response, and the use of speed trailers and other tools to address, and the upcoming tree lighting event. City Manager Greg Lee noted MnDOT establishes speed limits throughout the State and how limits are set at the 85th percentile. Councilmember Barnett asked if the department was supportive of the upcoming 12-hour shifts and if any preparations were occurring as part of the Kyle Rittenhouse case and verdict. Captain Youngquist explained how an optimal shift was 10 hours but how 12-hours did work well during the pandemic how the suggestion was brought forward by staff so should work well. He stated the department has no specific concerns regarding the upcoming verdict in Wisconsin but is monitoring the situation and has tools available should they be needed. Councilmember Skogquist spoke about the river incident and thanked both police and fire staff for their good work in addressing all situations, both those that are high profile and those that are not. Councilmember Wesp shared how Brooklyn Park recently adopted an ordinance that would allow them to lower local speed limits and suggested this method be used in Anoka on specific roadways. Councilmember Weaver shared safety concerns raised by parents of youth crossing West Main Street at Franklin School and the possibility of installing flashing lights or signage to assist. Captain Youngquist said staff was already utilizing a multi-pronged approach that included lighting and signage and would first conduct a study to substantiate the problem. Director of Public Services Mark Anderson outlined potential solutions that Council would be able to consider. Councilmember Skogquist suggested including Main Street towards the Coon Rapids border and Ferry Street and to work with MnDOT on where transitions of speed changes should occur. OTHER INFORMATION UNDER OPEN FORUM None. 5. PUBLIC HEARING(S) 5.1 Electric Fixed Rate Increase. RES/Approving an Electric Fixed Rate Increase. RESOLUTION November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 3 of 16 Finance Director Brenda Springer shared a background report stating annually the City Council reviews utility rates during the budget process. For 2022, staff is recommending an increase in the electric fixed utility rates beginning in January. The City Charter requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on rate increases to allow the public to comment on the proposed changes. The fixed charge covers the cost of annual depreciation of the infrastructure for the utility, described as the cost of delivering service to end users. The current fixed charges are $10.70 for residential and small commercial electric meters, $40.00 for large commercial electric meters. The last increase to electric fixed charges was $1.00 to residential and small commercial rates only, effective in 2018, and that Anoka Municipal Utilities have been working with Invoice Cloud to create a new website for customers that will allow for easier interaction and more information for the customer. Utility Billing staff has taken many comments from customers over the years about the practice of the $3.25 convenience fee charged when a customer makes a payment online or over the phone. She explained how staff recognized that this should be included as a cost of service moving forward and proposes a fixed charge increase to cover the web service and credit card processing charges. The current estimate for the annual website fees is $30,000 and the current estimate for annual credit card processing charges is $70,000. Ms. Springer said the proposed increase should generate approximately $147,000 in additional annual revenues the proposed increase in the electric variable and fixed rates is $1 per month for the average electric user for residential properties. This increase will allow us to provide the ability for customers to make payments remotely at no additional charge. The expectation is that more payments will be made using this method and eventually the revenue increase will be wholly offset by the credit card and web service charges. Ms. Springer noted staff will monitor regularly and discuss a possible utility rate increase on top of this fixed charge and that the action requested was to hold first reading of this Resolution, which is a new process for considering utility rate increases. Formally adoption of the Resolution will occur at the next meeting. Councilmember Wesp asked about the proposed increase in conjunction with new development occurring. Electric Utility Director Greg Geiger said staff has been seeing an increased load but is offset by SIP funding and noted most new buildings are energy efficient so minimal changes are expected there. He said unfortunately the change coming will occur in significant increases in purchase power adjustments as a result of the move to remove dependence on nuclear and coal. He noted overhead was already lower but that purchase power was 80% and explained the need to review for a possible energy charge to get rates in line with others but noted they are still lower than the City’s competitors. Councilmember Weaver asked what the increase will be in comparison to other providers. Ms. Springer confirmed rates will still be below the competition even with the proposed increase. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 4 of 16 Councilmember Skogquist spoke about the significant events that have affected power costs throughout the State as well as high weather temperatures last summer and the need to prepare for the future to sufficiently cover costs. Councilmember Barnett noted the online portal should result in some staff savings as check processing should decrease. Mayor Rice opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Being no comments Mayor Rice closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. NOTE: By motion from Councilmember Wesp, which was seconded by Councilmember Weaver, and by a unanimous vote of the Council, agenda item 9.1 was moved up on the agenda and acted upon at this point. Motion by Councilmember Barnett seconded by Councilmember Skogquist, to hold a first reading of this resolution (relating to adoption of electric utility rate increase for 2022), which is a new process for considering utility rate increases. Formal adoption of the Resolution will occur at the next regular meeting. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 5.2 On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday License; Barboza 7 LLC, dba; Senor Patron Mexican Restaurant, 440 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, Suite 106. RES/Issuance of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday License; Barboza 7 LLC, dba; Senor Patron Mexican Restaurant. RESOLUTION Mr. Lee shared a background report stating an application for an On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor License has been submitted by Barboza 7 LLC, dba; Senor Patron Mexican Restaurant, 440 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, Suite 106. He said this is the location previously known as TRC3 Kitchen & Cantina & El Azteca and is being sold to a new owner. Staff has conducted the necessary background investigations and inspections and no concerns or objections have been expressed. He noted the licensed premises will include the outdoor patio area. Mayor Rice opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Being no comments Mayor Rice closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Councilmember Skogquist asked the new owners to comment how they will address potential noise concerns from loud music from neighboring properties. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 5 of 16 Juan Miguel Barboza, applicant, said the previous owners had a dance floor but which would not be included in his business model so there should be no noise concerns. He thanked the City for welcoming him to the community and offered to work to support the community in turn. The Council welcomed Mr. Barboza to the City. NOTE: By motion from Councilmember Weaver, which was seconded by Councilmember Skogquist, and by a unanimous vote of the Council, agenda item 9.2 was moved up on the agenda and acted upon at this point. Motion by Councilmember Weaver seconded by Councilmember Wesp, to approve a resolution approving issuance of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Liquor License to Barboza 7 LLC, dba; Senor Patron Mexican Restaurant, 440 Bunker Lake Boulevard, Suite106, Anoka, Minnesota. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 5.3 Vacating Public Right-of-Way Highland Park Addition. RES/Vacating Public Right-of-Way Highland Park Addition. RESOLUTION Community Development Director Doug Borglund shared a background report stating at their October 18, 2021 meeting council set a Public Hearing date of November 15, 2021 to take testimony from the public regarding the proposed vacation of existing public right-of-way within the plat known as Highland Park Addition. The City of Anoka owns and/or has acquired approximately a total of 19 acres of land in the Highland Park area for the construction of phase 2 of Green Haven Parkway, relocation of a public park, and 15 acres of redevelopment property on Green Haven Golf Course. Many of the existing streets are no longer available to the traveling public and have been taken out of service since the new parkway is now open to the traveling public. The first step to clean up the title and replatting the property to prepare the site for development and a future land transaction is vacating the existing public right-of-way that is no longer being utilized. The redevelopment of the area will absorb much of the land that is proposed to be vacated. Councilmember Skogquist asked if there were 50-foot lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Borglund said he would confirm but noted many structures were built on 1-2 lots to expand lot size. Mayor Rice opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Being no comments Mayor Rice closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 6 of 16 NOTE: By motion from Councilmember Barnett, which was seconded by Councilmember Wesp, and by a unanimous vote of the Council, agenda item 9.3 was moved up on the agenda and acted upon at this point. Councilmember Skogquist asked if the parcels that were part of the golf course had already been vacated. Mr. Borglund confirmed all other parcels have been previously vacated. Motion by Councilmember Skogquist seconded by Councilmember Barnett, to adopt a resolution vacating public right-of-way, Highland Park Addition. Councilmember Wesp explained how the vision for a parkway began in 2010 and how property owners were supportive which resulted in this project happening much quicker than planned and thanked Mr. Lee and Mr. Borglund for their work. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 5.4 Renewal of Currency Exchange License; Al’$ Check Cashing LLC, 205 E. Main Street. Mr. Lee shared a background report stating the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce is requesting the City Council comment on whether or not the State Currency Exchange License should be issued to Al’$ Check Cashing LLC, previously The UnBank Company LLP, 205 E Main St, Anoka. The Police Department supports the issuance of this license and since the Minnesota Department of Commerce is responsible for license applications forms and fees, the City is only commenting regarding any objections to this license. He said Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that a Public Hearing be held for the Issuance and/or Renewal of a Currency Exchange License and that after comment formal action on this item would occur within the Consent Agenda. Mayor Rice opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Being no comments Mayor Rice closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 6. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilmember Weaver seconded by Councilmember Skogquist, to approve Consent Agenda 6.1 through 6.3 as presented. Councilmember Skogquist noted the calendar should include the executive session on December 20, 2021. 6.1 Approve Verified Bills. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 7 of 16 6.2 Revising and Setting Council Calendars. 6.3 Renewal of Currency Exchange License; Al’$ Check Cashing, LLC, 205 E. Main Street. Vote taken. All ayes. Motion carried. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None. 8. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATION None. 9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 9.1 RES/Approving an Electric Fixed Rate Increase. ACTED UPON AFTER PUBLIC HEARING 9.2 RES/Issuance of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday License; Barboza 7 LLC, dba; Senor Patron Mexican Restaurant. ACTED UPON AFTER PUBLIC HEARING 9.3 RES/Vacating Public Right-of-Way Highland Park Addition. ACTED UPON AFTER PUBLIC HEARING 9.4 RES/Anoka Water Treatment Plant 6 and 8 Expansion; Approve Plans and Specifications, Authorize the Advertisement for Bid, and Set a Bid Date. RESOLUTION Director of Public Services Mark Anderson shared a background report stating the Water Division of the Anoka Public Services Department is responsible for the reliable supply of safe drinking water to all City of Anoka water users and has been for over 100 years. He explained the City’s six production wells and how they pump raw water to five water treatment plants (WTPs) where the water is filtered and treated before being pumped into the overall system to meet the water needs of the City. He outlined the million gallons per day (MGD) based on all wells and treatment plants running 20 hours per day and explained firm capacity to describe the maximum pumping capacity of the City water system with the best production well out of service. The 2017 Comprehensive Water Plan and 2021 Feasibility Study indicate that the City of will need additional water production to November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 8 of 16 meet the needs of the growing City in the near future. Mr. Anderson said the City has been working with Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH) to develop a strategy to satisfy present and future water needs with a phased implementation strategy then outlined the proposed project and request to advertisement for bid. He said the estimated cost for the WTP 6 and 8 expansion project is $6,400,000 and that funding would come from bonding. Ms. Springer spoke about the need for the project and to issue bonds and how a rate increase of 8 cents will cover the project. She explained about the bond in 2020 and new bonding for 2022 will help in addition to the two rate increases in the past. Councilmember Skogquist asked if the increase will cover the possible bonding plus future bonding costs. Ms. Springer explained the total project cost was $13 million and that $6.4 million for Wells 6 and 8 is part of the overall $13 million. Councilmember Barnett confirmed this project would not affect the general levy which is the reason for the rate increase so the project can occur. Mayor Rice asked questions regarding the process of adding wells within the next several years and how long Anoka has had a public water system. Mr. Anderson explained the water system was first constructed in the late 1800s but filtration has not always been a part of the water system. He said water was pumped from the Rum River at one point but was not ideal so Well 1 was constructed. He added the Comprehensive Water Plan addresses new wells and WTPs. Mr. Lee noted Wells 1 and 2 will be decommissioned if approved which will help. Mayor Rice asked questions regarding the balance of taking water from the river versus from a well. Mr. Anderson explained how the technology was created for well water and not surface water and if we switched to surface water, we would need another plant to treat that water which would be more costly. Motion by Councilmember Skogquist seconded by Councilmember Barnett, to adopt a resolution for the Anoka Water Treatment Plant 6 and 8 Expansion; Approve Plans and Specifications, Authorize the Advertisement for Bid, and Set a Bid Date. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 9.5 RES/Highway 10 Rum River Bridge and Corridor Project; Approve Purchase of Permanent Easements for Utility Purposes. RESOLUTION November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 9 of 16 Engineering Technician Ben Nelson shared a background report stating in the spring of 2022, State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will be reconstructing Highway 10 from 1,100 feet west of the Trunk Highway 47/169 Ferry Street interchange to just east of 7th Avenue. The project will include replacing the Highway 10 bridge over the Rum River, transforming the Ferry Street interchange into a single point diamond interchange and the addition of auxiliary lanes between Ferry Street and 7th Avenue. Total estimated project cost is $64 million and includes many benefits. As a result of this construction, this highway corridor will now be classified as a freeway section and the City is required to relocate a portion of the trunk watermain and sanitary sewer along the Highway 10 corridor. All utilities located within trunk highway right-of-way are permitted under a utility permit. Based on Statute, the State can require the permitted facilities to be relocated for the construction of a trunk highway route when the commissioner determines that such action is in the best interest of the state. The only case that MnDOT would pay for these City utilities to be relocated is for a “first move” which is for facilities that are in place before the highway was and, in this case. The City used the “first move” in the 1960s when Highway 10 was originally constructed. Mr. Nelson noted that based on MnDOT’s Utility Accommodation policy, longitudinal installation of new utility facilities shall not be allowed within the right-of-way of any freeway, except in special cases under strictly controlled conditions. Based on previous conversations by City staff with MnDOT, the City has been allowed under a special circumstance for the longitudinal installation of the City’s watermain and sanitary sewer. Beginning in 2022, City will be relocating the trunk watermain along the north side of Trunk Highway 10 from approximately State Avenue to 5th Avenue and along the south side of Trunk Highway 10 from approximately 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue. As part of this construction, the City needed to obtain two utility easements for the trunk watermain. City staff has been in negotiation with the property owners to purchase these easements for utility purposes. Motion by Councilmember Wesp seconded by Councilmember Weaver, to adopt a resolution approving the Highway 10 Rum River bridge and corridor project; approve purchase of permanent easements for utility purposes. Councilmember Skogquist thanked the Nordburg family for their donation of an easement to assist with this project. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 9.6 RES/Highway 10 Rum River Bridge and Corridor Project; Approve Permits for Temporary Construction on City Easements and Parcels for the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation. RESOLUTION November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 10 of 16 Mr. Nelson shared a background report stating as part of the Highway 10 reconstruction MnDOT’s policy requires the City to acknowledge that the City will not be paid for temporary easements. MnDOT utilizes a “Zero Dollar Permit” when no compensation is due. The State now requires all governmental agencies as part of the approval of the zero dollar permits to provide a resolution or board approval by motion. These temporary easements will affect two City parcels and two parcels with City utility easements. Motion by Councilmember Weaver seconded by Councilmember Skogquist, to adopt a resolution for the Highway 10 Rum River Bridge and Corridor Project; Approve Permits for Temporary Construction on City Easements and Parcels for the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 9.7 RES/Opposing COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates. RESOLUTION Mr. Lee shared a background report stating after previous discussions Council directed staff to draft a resolution opposing any governmental mandates on COVID-19 vaccines. A draft resolution was sent to Council with a request for review and submitted changes. Staff is requesting that Council discuss the draft resolution and provide direction to staff on changes that should be made if adopted. Councilmember Barnett spoke about the debate in America about the risks and benefits to the vaccine but noted this action was intended to remain neutral on efficacy and risk. She said the resolution was not about the vaccine being worthwhile but about the punishment of people and using our staff as part of the process. She shared further comments and suggestions for amendments to the proposed resolution and recommended including the original paragraphs A-1 through A-3 then include paragraphs A-5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11-13. Councilmember Barnett spoke about the Resolution and that it is not about risks and/or benefits of the injections, and that the Resolution is proposed to be neutral. The Resolution is meant to address the punishment factor towards those individuals that do not want to be injected. Councilmember Skogquist said he was not in favor of forcing employees to get the vaccine and said the City falls under OSHA which requires either a vaccine or test. He said he works throughout Minnesota and other cities do this and noted cities are required to provide basic services balanced with protocols in the event of an exposure and vaccination rates. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 11 of 16 Mr. Lee explained the protocols already in place and noted some employees were testing positive again, even those with the vaccine. Ms. Springer shared how the CARES funding allowed many departments to establish technology to work remotely and while they may have to quarantine employees can usually still work. Councilmember Wesp asked about current vaccination rates among employees then referred to the language in proposed paragraphs A-11 through A-13 and whether a city can say such action is unconstitutional. Mr. Lee said vaccination rates is not data the City is currently collecting. City Attorney Scott Baumgartner clarified citing something that is an accepted fact is not meant to convince someone but supports the rationale of some of the other points, based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Councilmember Weaver said he was unsure about the medical ethics portion of the resolution but supported the action. Mayor Rice said while he believed in the principles the resolution was a step too far in the role of City leadership. He said it would be wrong to tell any employee of the City that they have to do something as far as a medical treatment and noted these discussions have occurred over other vaccines in the past and that he supported people’s right to choose. Councilmember Skogquist said he did not think that masking and testing is unreasonable if the mandate becomes effective then spoke about the proposed fines and how adopting this resolution would put Anoka in the forefront and felt the City did not need to take further action as the intent is not to force anyone to obtain the vaccine. Mayor Rice said he was concerned with the oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and how this was wrong but felt saying we will not mandate vaccinations was sufficient and should not overstep legal bounds. Councilmember Weaver agreed but said if we do not take a stand there could be other consequences. Mr. Lee note the resolution would not commit the City to do anything but just states the Council’s position of opposing government mandates of vaccine. Councilmember Barnett agreed the City would not force vaccination and confirmed no ones’ careers would be in jeopardy but said it was important that the residents understand they could still attend an activity or receive the same City service, adding vaccination proof as a possibility. She reiterated this action was about choice and the Constitution. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 12 of 16 Councilmember Skogquist spoke about potential impacts on businesses and residents and if we agree no one would lose their job over refusing the vaccination then this resolution just creates a culture war for no benefit. Mr. Baumgartner suggested removing the references to Nauenberg and the Declaration of Helsinki as experimental could be a problematic word and suggested removing paragraph A-13. Motion by Councilmember Barnett seconded by Councilmember Weaver, to adopt a resolution opposing any governmental mandate requiring members of the public to be inoculated with a COVID-19 vaccine as recommended including the original paragraphs A-1 through A-3 then include paragraphs A-5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Upon a roll call vote: Councilmembers Barnett, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Mayor Rice and Councilmember Skogquist voted nay. Motion carried. 9.8 RES/Amending Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County; Elections. RESOLUTION Mr. Lee shared a background report stating all municipalities in Anoka County entered into a joint powers agreement (JPA) with Anoka County for the allocation of elections expenses. He said the proposed resolution would amend the current JPA that would include updated dates, removal of “Category D” (Hospital District) as the North Suburban Hospital District dissolved in 2019, updated language for calculating population percentages, and an allocation of a portion of absentee ballot postage costs to cities/schools. He said while it is unknown what the financial impact will be related to absentee ballot postage at this time, it generally is a minimal expense to the City and is estimated to be approximately $5,400 in 2022. Motion by Councilmember Skogquist seconded by Councilmember Wesp, to adopt a resolution amending a joint powers agreement with Anoka County for the allocation of costs for election expenses. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 9.9 RES/Cancellation of General Obligation Street Improvement 2022 Bond Levy. RESOLUTION Ms. Springer shared a background report stating according to Statute the City is required to adopt a resolution canceling the bond levy, which is originally certified with Anoka County if it is not intending to levy for the certified bond November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 13 of 16 levy amount. She shared the proposed resolution canceling the bond levy because the amount needed to pay the City’s debt is included in the general fund operating levy as a transfer out. There will be no impact to the budget or the truth and taxation notices to property tax payers, as the cancellation of debt was already included in the calculations. Motion by Councilmember Barnett seconded by Councilmember Weaver, to adopt a resolution authorizing cancellation of General Obligation Street Improvement Bond 2022 Bond Levy. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice, Councilmembers Barnett, Skogquist, Weaver and Wesp voted in favor. Motion carried. 9.10 ORD/Amending Chapter 78, Article IX, Division 1, Section 78-652, Walls, Fences and Hedges. (1st Reading) City Planner Clark Palmer shared a background report stating the Community Development Department is proposing a text amendment to City Code Section 78-562 (e). This section of the Zoning Code regulates fence heights in residential zoning districts. Staff is proposing to amend the language because the current language is poorly written and uses poorly defined terms such as “line,” “lines” and “along.” Although the Zoning Code defines “lot line” and “building line,” the existing language is not clear. Therefore, the existing language may not be easily understood by the general public or staff, causing challenges and possible inconsistencies with the administration of regulations. Staff seeks to amend the code using clear language and clearly defined terms. Staff recommends regulating fence height based on a fence’s location relative to its placement in the respective yards. “Yard” and the types of yards (i.e., front, side, rear) are clearly defined and easily understood within the existing Zoning Code. Councilmember Weaver asked if he should abstain from any discussion on this proposed ordinance. Mr. Baumgartner explained the ordinance was a result of prior litigation that involved Councilmember Weaver in his individual capacity and recommended he abstain. He explained how litigation was concluded in the court of appeals but a second litigation related to timing of the ordinance and notification relative to publication in the official newspaper for the public hearing was in discussion, which was separate from the ordinance itself. Councilmember Skogquist said he was not pleased this was included on the agenda as he has asked about status of the lawsuit with no response. He said if the proposed ordinance was being presented because of a lawsuit that could potentially be a strategy he suggested that be dealt with first before considering any amendments. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 14 of 16 Mr. Baumgartner explained the proposal from staff was relative to the amendment and not in response to any litigation. He said the litigation shed light on the current code and whether the language was really clear. He said the purpose of bringing this forward was not to avoid litigation but for the archaic language to be made clear and prevent confusion in the future. Councilmember Barnett confirmed the current litigation was regarding timing of the public posting only. Councilmember Skogquist stated he has questions about the effect of this on other things including future litigation, which is why he felt it would be better to talk about this in executive session. Mr. Baumgartner concurred and stated he would always caution the Council to not discuss something in an open forum that is in current litigation. Mayor Rice asked if there are any time constraints to reviewing this amendment and if not, suggested waiting to hold discussion in an executive session. Mr. Baumgartner said the recommendation came from the Planning Commission and while timely action after any public hearing is good, the item could be postponed but not for too long. Motion by Councilmember Skogquist seconded by Mayor Rice, to table consideration of first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 78, Article IX, Division 1, Section 78-562(e) of the City Code of the City of Anoka, Minnesota. Mr. Baumgartner explained the court of appeals, in its interpretation of City code, considered three issues. One dealt with whether or not a sign was a sign to be regulated by the City so, therefore, the City’s sign ordinance could be enforced against it. The sign was diamond shaped and depicted a Labrador crossing. Mr. Baumgartner stated the second issue was the placement and location of the garbage can after pickup, relative to private property on a private drive, not a public street. The third issue related to fence height in a particular location on a residential riparian property, which is the front yard and which is the side yard. That is the language the court dealt with primarily. Mr. Baumgartner explained the court of appeals found in favor of the City on the dog sign and garbage can placement and found against the City on the interpretation of the ordinance relative to where a fence may be place on a riparian lot, focusing on language in the ordinance that talks about ‘in front of the front line of the residential structure.’ He explained that is the language the court of appeals picked up on, but the definition of ‘line’ and ‘front line’ is not identified in City code. Using Webster’s dictionary, the court of appeals determined that ‘in front of the front line of the residential structure’ had to mean where the front door was. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 15 of 16 Mr. Baumgartner noted the difficulty in City code is that we don’t define ‘front line’ or ‘line’ but speak in terms of yards, front yards, rear yards. In the court of appeals’ decision, the ‘front of the front line’ language conflicted with that of a riparian lot’s front and rear yards since the front yard faces the river. The court of appeals’ interpretation was different than how City staff had interpreted the meaning and application of that ordinance. Mr. Baumgartner stated it was not clear and since ‘line’ and ‘front line’ were not defined in the code, it precipitated staff to come back with language that is easier to understand in terms of yards, which is defined, so it would be easier to identify where fences are allowed and at what height based upon whether in the front yard or side yard or rear yard as opposed to ‘in front of the front line of a residential structure.’ Councilmember Wesp stated to him, it sounds like the court of appeals said the City’s ordinance needs to be more defined. Mr. Baumgartner advised that the court of appeals did not state that. He explained the case started at the district court level and since it involved the City of Anoka, the case was moved from the Anoka County district court to Isanti County to avoid a conflict of interest. The district court initially heard the case and ruled in favor of the City of Anoka on all grounds so the City received summary judgement at the district court level. It was then appealed to the court of appeals, and that panel of three judges overturned the summary judgement of the district court on the issue regarding the fence. Mr. Baumgartner explained the court of appeals did not necessarily say the ordinance was not clear but interpreted it in a way that staff and he had not interpreted it. Historically the way the ordinance had been interpreted and applied was different than how the court of appeals interpreted it. He explained the court of appeals interpreted the ordinance in a way that staff did not understand it was to be interpreted or applied over the years. That is what precipitated staff to come back. He noted if the City is getting unintended consequences upon the application of this particular ordinance, then it needs to be fixed as the City cannot apply the ordinance in a manner it was not intended. Councilmember Skogquist thanked Mr. Baumgartner for the explanation, which he thought the Council should have received the first time. He reiterated his disappointment that this topic was included on an agenda while there was pending litigation. He stated he has questions about the current law suit, how this action affects that law suit, and made the motion to table to follow precedent. Upon a roll call vote: Mayor Rice and Councilmember Skogquist and Barnett voted in favor. Councilmembers Wesp voted nay. Councilmember Weaver abstained. Motion carried. November 15, 2021 (Regular) Page 16 of 16 Mr. Lee noted this topic will be included on either the December 6 or December 20 Executive Session. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 11. NEW BUSINESS None. 12. UPDATES AND REPORTS 12.1 Tentative Agenda(s). The Council reviewed the tentative agendas of the upcoming Council meetings. 12.2 Staff and Council Input. Councilmember Skogquist said a more detailed MMPA updated would be forthcoming, including potential rate fluctuations. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Barnett made a motion to adjourn the Regular Council meeting. Councilmember Wesp seconded the motion. Vote taken. All ayes. Motion carried. Time of adjournment: 9:20 p.m. Submitted by: Cathy Sorensen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Approval Attestation: Amy T. Oehlers, City Clerk