City Council

HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:00 pm THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL THE START OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER II. ADOPT AGENDA III. PRESENTATIONS 1. JCI Hopkins Donation to the Hopkins Police Department Cops N Kids Program; Johnson 2. U of M Student Projects; Elverum IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of the November 30, 2020 City Council Budget Hearing Proceedings 2. Minutes of the December 1, 2020 City Council Regular Meeting Proceedings 3. Minutes of the December 8, 2020 City Council Special Meeting Proceedings 4. Resolution Designating Polling Places for the 2021 General Election; Domeier 5. Second Reading of Ordinance 2020-1160; Lindahl 6. Approve Resolution 2020-066 Authorizing Amendment to Residential Recycling Grant Agreement with Hennepin County; Stadler V. PUBLIC HEARING VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. First Reading: Ordinance Repealing Chapter 20, Article II of the Hopkins City Code regarding Truth in Housing; Kearney VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS  Next Regular City Council Meeting: Tuesday, January 5 at 7:00 p.m. IX. ADJOURN DUE TO THE COVID-19 HEALTH PANDEMIC, THE CITY COUNCIL’S REGULAR MEETING PLACE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO DESIRE TO MONITOR THE MEETING REMOTELY OR GIVE INPUT OR TESTIMONY DURING THE MEETING CAN FIND INSTRUCTIONS AT www.hopkinsmn.com/virtualmeetings OR BY CALLING CITY HALL AT 952-548-6302 (DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS 8 AM TO 4:30 PM.) December 15, 2020 Council Report 2020-102 U of MN Student Projects Proposed Action No action required. Overview Students from the University of MN Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management Program will be presenting their end of the semester projects for Council. A copy of the executive summaries for their projects is included. Supporting Documents  Executive Summary Kersten Elverum, Community Development and Planning Director Recommendations for a resilient, equitable, & sustainable Hopkins ESPM 4041W: Problem Solving for Environmental Change Prepared for the City of Hopkins staff, officials, and residents, and in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Presentations by students in the Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management Program College of Food, Agricultural, & Natural Resource Sciences University of Minnesota December 15, 2020 Welcome This fall, students in the Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management capstone course at the University of Minnesota gathered and synthesized information about the City of Hopkins. Ten groups developed recommendations in a wide range of areas including sustainability metrics, urban forest stewardship, policy changes, and community engagement, among others. While the projects are tailored to Hopkins, we believe many of the findings and recommendations are applicable to other to cities and towns throughout Minnesota. It is our hope that city staff, officials, and residents will find this work useful in their pursuit of a sustainable future for their communities. Presentation Schedule Groups will present to the City Council of Hopkins on December 15, 2020. Presentations will be grouped into three blocks, with four minutes for each presentation and some additional time for questions between each block of presentations. Hopkins officials and managers will be given digital copies of the reports, appendix materials, presentations, and websites for future reference. Block 1 Block 2 GreenStep Cities Advancement Urban Forest Media and Outreach Plan Nolan Wright, Bridget Robertson°^, Alana Mack Holmes°*, Annette Johnson^, Danny Honaker, & Jaycie Thomsen°* Knuth, Bailey Tangen°, & Hannah Henricksen Zoning for Sustainable Buildings Community-Led Urban Tree Survey Abby Hornberger, Abigail Clapp°^, Adam Aaron Hyams°, Mary Clare McAleer^, Julia Janicki*, Hannah Francis, & Ellie Steiner° Kobilka, Samantha Schnoll°*, & Annie Zeiler Enhancement of Native Vegetation in Policy Recommendations for the Parks and Right-of-Ways Preservation of Urban Forest Canopy Emily Casper*, Eudora Johnson^, Alexandra Phillip Davis*°, Rachel Balster^, Ally Calametti°, Dirk Last°, & Margarette Palminteri°, Kelsey Keinholz, & Molly O’Neil McGann Block 3 Community Engaged Strategy for Ash Management Planning for Urban Implementing Bee Lawns Forests Hannah Weber°, Nancy Fahmy*, Christopher Wystan Duhn*, Ryan Hankins^, Nick Macke, Emily Locke, & Joe Holdreith°^ Bugajski°, Jiaming Huo, & Katie Hembre° Advancing Park Equity and Accessibility Climate Change Adaptation and Urban Alexis Ganske, Cassie Hagen*, Nadia Forests Janis°^, Megan Murphy, & Colin Robinson° Sean Lim*, Liv Bunde*, Clare Grilley^°, Cassondra Janssen, Kai Knudson, & Abigail Sveen° *denotes group leader, ^denotes group liaison, ° denotes presenter Instructors Kristen C. Nelson, Professor; Eric North, Professor; Hannah Ramer, Teaching Assistant Acknowledgements We would like to thank the City of Hopkins for providing the opportunity to work with them and with other professionals in the community to develop these reports. We would especially like to thank Kersten Elverum, Jan Youngquist, and Jason Lindahl of the City of Hopkins as well as Valerie McClannahan of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for their extended support. GreenStep Cities Advancement Nolan Wright, Bridget Robertson (presenter), Alana Honaker, Jaycie Thomsen (presenter) GreenStep Cities is a program that works with cities to assist and acknowledge their work towards environmental and sustainable goals. The program is based around twenty-nine best practices that a city can choose to implement based on their goals and needs. Each best practice has different actions, for example, using LED lights, promoting local food production and new developments of parks and green spaces, that can be recognized by the GreenSteps program to develop a city profile. As a city completes actions, their status as a GreenStep city moves from Step 1 all the way to Step 3. In order to reach Steps 4 and 5, a city is required to report performance metrics on various topics such as renewable energy, city buildings and lighting and more. Through the assistance from interns from the University of Minnesota, Hopkins began developing their GreenSteps profile in 2010 and worked towards implementing sustainable and environmental policies and practices. The city has completed forty-six total actions to date. This achievement has earned the city of Hopkins a Step 3 recognition from the GreenStep Cities program. Although their GreenSteps profile has not been updated since 2013, the city of Hopkins is excited to begin working towards becoming a Step 4 city. A team of University of Minnesota students in the Environmental Science, Policy, and Management major were tasked to work with the City of Hopkins to provide recommendations the city can use to advance their sustainability efforts through the GreenStep Cities program. This report aims to provide Hopkins with the guidance and tools to build a more robust GreenSteps profile and to advance to a Step 4 GreenStep city. We used four key research techniques to inform these recommendations- literature review, key informant interviews, case studies, and a comparative policy analysis. The literature review examined the role and effectiveness of voluntary sustainable cities programs. Key informant interviews provided insights into the resources available to cities for GreenStep Cities advancement. Case studies looked to leading GreenStep cities for progressive examples. The comparative policy analysis analyzed the 2040 comprehensive plan against the GreenStep best practices to guide next steps. The synthesis of results from each research method guided the following recommendations: 1. Apply for an MPCA GreenCorps member to create and undertake a data gathering plan 2. Establish a yearly internship program 3. Build an internal Green Team to coordinate actions across city departments 4. Begin using the GreenStep Cities Step ⅘ excel worksheet to track data and metrics By implementing the following recommendations in this report, Hopkins can advance as a Step 4 GreenStep City. After a year of data reporting, Hopkins has the potential to advance to a Step 5 GreenStep City if they make progress in at least three eligible core metric elements. Not only will advancement to Step 4 reduce Hopkins’ carbon emissions and energy consumption, it will save Hopkins money and increase public investment. Zoning for Sustainable Buildings Abby Hornberger, Abigail Clapp (presenter), Adam Janicki, Hannah Francis, Ellie Steiner (presenter) The City of Hopkins, Minnesota, will be facing increasing population densities and the effects of climate change now and into the future. With three new light rail transit stops, the city can expect an influx of commuters and residents in their downtown area. As precipitation variability and extreme weather events are projected to increase, the city will have to adapt and mitigate these effects by creating resilient infrastructure. The project objective is to provide Hopkins city planners with recommendations for improving zoning for sustainable buildings. The report methods include literature reviews, case studies, and key informant interviews. Literature reviews focus on five key considerations—education, sustainable building construction, certifications and standards, programs and partnerships, and funding options/ incentives. Case studies were selected based on their success in reaching sustainability standards and geographically to fit Hopkin’s climate. Interviews were conducted with sustainability professionals to gather in-depth information on our preliminary findings. The research for this report supports a variety of tools to support sustainable building. Education and community engagement were found to be important for changing community behavior. Creating partnerships with local organizations will lower the financial burden of sustainable buildings. Non- financial incentives are a good first step to increasing sustainability of buildings, however, codes and regulations that require a desired level of sustainability are more effective. Certifications and standards such as B3, Energy Star, and LEED are good systems for measuring the desired level of sustainability. For these reasons we recommend the following actions for Hopkins: ● Engage community members through an online or community center sustainable development education program to increase public support and community action. ● Create and strengthen partnerships with local organizations and agencies that provide funding and/or programs to advance and guide the transition to sustainable development. ● Create non-financial incentives to encourage sustainable development within commercial and residential building areas. ● Adopt building codes and ordinances that incentivize sustainable design and promotes the utilization of sustainability rating systems and performance standards to increase the efficiency, longevity, and financial savings of every building. Enhancement of Native Vegetation in Parks and Right-of-Ways Emily Casper, Eudora Johnson, Alexandra Calametti (presenter), Dirk Last (presenter), Margarette McGann Hopkins is a suburban city located about 10 miles west of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 2019, the city produced a Draft Comprehensive Plan for the year 2040. As part of the plan, they identified ways in which Hopkins can improve the natural environment within the community. To help reach the sustainability goals outlined in their plan, Hopkins partnered with students from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. The report's overall goal is to supply the city with recommendations on enhancing the vegetation in Hopkins' parks and rights-of-ways (ROW). While designing these recommendations, students needed to keep in mind the project's city partners' desired outcomes. These include a list of recommended vegetation, funding sources, community involvement, and invasive species management strategies. Data collection techniques consisted of site visits, key informant interviews, literature review, cost estimate & environmental service assessment, and ArcGIS inventory to gather information on these topics. The key informant interviews provided insight into different management strategies for native vegetation and some short and long-term funding opportunities suitable for Hopkins. A literature review on the benefits of vegetation enhancement and community engagement provided additional information for our project. Additionally, site visits and the use of geospatial databases and tools such as ArcGIS and EDDMaps helped identify the most common invasive species found throughout Hopkins. After identifying these, online literature research was conducted to determine Buckthorn's best management practices, Creeping Charlie, Leafy Spurge, and Wild Parsnip. Based on the information gathered, four recommendations were developed in this report to suit Hopkins’ needs: 1. Enhance parks using site-specific alternative vegetation, management strategies, and funding opportunities 2. Improve right-of-ways using site-specific alternative vegetation, management strategies, and funding opportunities 3. Engage the local community to assist in supporting, implementing and sustaining vegetation projects, and 4. Consider various invasive species management strategies for the most commonly found Hopkin’s invasives to protect native species and biodiversity. Urban Forest Media and Outreach Plan Mack Holmes (presenter), Annette Johnson, Danny Knuth, Bailey Tangen (presenter), Hannah Henricksen In collaboration with the city of Hopkins, students from the University of Minnesota have outlined an urban forest outreach and media plan centered on tree species education and management, outdoor community engagement, and social media campaigns and education for use in the city of Hopkins. This report and the campaign recommendations to follow aim to assist in the following ways: 1. Community engagement a. Community engagement not only allows for citizens to learn about urban forests, but it increases government-citizen transparency and empowers the citizens of the city. 2. Promotion of the city of Hopkins and emphasize healthy living a. By increasing public parks and improving upon the urban forest Hopkins citizens will find themselves outdoors more often and other similar cities will look to Hopkins’ plans as inspiration and motivation to better their urban forests. To accomplish these goals and provide accurate recommendations for Hopkins, a number of research methods were employed. These methods include literature reviews, census and demographic data research, research paper analyses, Hopkins land use research, and examination of previous outreach campaigns done by both Hopkins and other small cities. The research led to a number of findings, however the most important and the ones that heavily influenced our recommendations are as follows. First, although Hopkins has limited social media presence, their Facebook page is quite active and is visited often. Hopkins has a large portion of the population within the 25-34 year old range. This corresponds quite closely to the distribution of users of Facebook, one of Hopkins main communication pathways. Second, Hopkins has an active and tailorable newsletter that can help reach those who don't utilize social media. Third, demographics are one of the most important factors when designing effective outreach campaigns. Based on the research and findings the following recommendations for possible media campaigns will assist Hopkins cultivate a more environmentally engaged and informed community. Campaigns range from community events (tree scavenger hunt) to redistribution of space in available communication paths (citizen resources). Community-Led Urban Tree Survey Aaron Hyams (presenter), Mary Clare McAleer, Julia Kobilka, Samantha Schnoll (presenter), Annie Zeiler The City of Hopkins, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, identified a need to develop a community-led urban tree survey program. This program will engage the community members of Hopkins through volunteering, promote awareness of Hopkin’s urban trees, and produce data on the current state of the urban canopy. A team of five senior students in the Environmental Science, Policy and Management program at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities worked to recommend steps which can be used to create a volunteer tree surveying program. The project team coordinated with stakeholders including City of Hopkins staff and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Urban Forestry experts to develop this report. A literature review of sampling methods, volunteer recruitment, and volunteer training was performed to help guide recommendations for the City of Hopkins. Additionally, a case study was conducted in which neighboring communities were inquired about how they perform urban tree surveys to identify strategies Hopkins may utilize with their efforts. Lastly, a COVID-19 adaptation plan was included in this report. This adaptation plan aims to ensure the health and safety of all community volunteers participating in surveying efforts. Based on this study, the following four recommendations can help Hopkins create a community-led urban tree survey program. ● Engage in targeted community outreach to recruit inspired volunteers: ○ Identifying a volunteer coordinator will aid in volunteer recruitment, training, and surveying. ● Utilize available software (i-Tree) to record and analyze data collected by volunteers: ○ Data collected by volunteers will need to be stored and referenced to develop a city- wide tree management plan. ○ i-Tree software is available for free and developed by the United States Forest Service. ● Train volunteers with tree identification tools available through the University of Minnesota: ○ Tree identification cards may be used to train volunteers participating in surveying efforts. ● COVID-19 adaptations must be implemented for volunteer safety: ○ Limiting the sharing of equipment, encouraging volunteer groups of immediate family members, and requiring face coverings are all recommended to allow for safe and effective surveying. Policy Recommendations for the Preservation of Hopkins Urban Forest Canopy Phillip Davis (presenter), Rachel Balster, Ally Palminteri (presenter), Kelsey Keinholz, Molly O’Neil It is becoming increasingly more important for cities across the state of Minnesota to establish more resilient urban tree canopies as challenges such as climate change introduce long lasting effects on our ecosystems. The goal of this project is to provide Hopkins policy options that will support their goals to increase the resilience of their urban forest canopy, protect the canopy from diseases and pests, and preserve the environmental and cultural benefits of an urban forest. This report outlines our research methods, the findings of our research, and the recommendations we propose to achieve these goals for Hopkins. We hope that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will use this project as a guide to create effective standards for tree care guides and city tree ordinances across the state of Minnesota. To create substantial and feasible recommendations we focused our research on analyzing exists sets of city codes and ordinances throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, conducting key informant interviews with professionals who work in the urban forestry and public policy fields, and conducting a comparative ordinance analysis that allowed us to create a set of standards (Bronze, Silver or Gold) by which city ordinances may be graded based on our findings. The results of our research were as follows: education needs to become a primary focus throughout the city to engage residents in the protection of their natural landscapes; the cities within our sample had a mix of bronze, silver, and gold standards for disease and pest control, as well as tree preservation; and that no city within our sample had a system of ordinances set into place focusing on the protection and designation of heritage trees. Using the results of our research we have outlined multiple recommendations for Hopkins to further establish a healthy urban forest canopy. We found that community engagement and education should be the primary focus in achieving these goals, which will in time allow for better enforcement of the city’s urban tree ordinances. Hopkins should work closely with landlords and homeowners to identify incentives that would aid in the prevention of tree pests and diseases and tree preservation. Finally, we believe the creation of a community oriented tree heritage program will foster public awareness surrounding the city’s socially, culturally, and environmentally significant trees. Community Engaged Strategy for Implementing Bee Lawns Hannah Weber (presenter), Nancy Fahmy, Christopher Macke, Emily Locke, Joe Holdreith (presenter) Hopkins City planners are constantly looking to improve and diversify their parks and other green spaces. With growing concern from the public regarding bee decline, Hopkins is looking to add more pollinator habitat through introducing flowering vegetation to their urban landscape. Adding pollinator-friendly vegetation will not only support pollinator conservation, but will also add aesthetic and emotional value to Hopkins’ green spaces. The objective of this report is to suggest bee lawns as a solution to enhance Hopkins green spaces; bee lawns ideally will make green spaces more attractive to residents, incentivize a strong connection to native ecology, and encourage homeowners and other landowners to implement bee conservation into private spaces. In order to best meet the needs of Hopkins, we conducted research to determine where bee lawns could be implemented in Hopkins, as well as what flowering plant species would work well in a seed mix based on different light requirements and planting times. The collected data includes a map of Hopkins’ parks and calculations of acreage in each park, and characteristics of native species that thrive in bee lawns. Hopkins’ parks contain many areas that would be appropriate for bee lawn implementation, mainly areas that are currently turfgrass or have low vegetation and low rates of foot traffic. Based on the above data, we offer recommendations on types of areas where bee lawns could be implemented, an educational outreach plan, alternative solutions to support Hopkin’s sustainability goals, and a three-year plan outlining how Hopkins might go about implementing bee lawns in their parks. The three year plan starts with surveying residents to judge feelings, following with passing a pledge to become a pollinator-friendly city, and ending with bee lawn implementation. In addition to addressing broader environmental initiatives, a main objective of this project is to provide a plan for educating residents and Hopkins staff about bee conservation; the community should feel interested and equipped to implement bee lawns. Advancing Park Equity and Accessibility Alexis Ganske, Cassie Hagen, Nadia Janis (presenter), Megan Murphy, Colin Robinson (presenter) Hopkins, Minnesota is distinguished by its rich, historic downtown, diverse demographics, and unique access to nature. This four-mile town contains 19 parks and natural areas that offer diverse amenities and opportunities for recreation, including hockey rinks, trails, playgrounds, and soccer fields. These spaces are vital in fostering Hopkins’ sense of community as individuals are encouraged to interact with one another. Given the indisputable importance of these spaces, we partnered with the city of Hopkins to support the goal of all citizens having access to park resources and that the amenities contained within them meet their needs. This senior capstone project, along with nine other reports, seeks to maintain Hopkins' identity while cultivating its built, natural, social, and economic environments into a resilient, equitable, and sustainable community. To holistically understand the Hopkins park system and community and accurately recommend areas of improvement to the city of Hopkins, we engaged in multi-pronged methods: ● Review of Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan ● Case study investigation of privately-owned public spaces ● Key informant interviews with diverse experts ● Community insights through park board meetings ● Mapping barriers to Hopkins park access across demographics After careful consideration of Hopkins’ current park systems, our recommendations surrounding Hopkins park planning and assessment can be summarized as such: 1. Inclusively evaluate current park engagement through community-adapted tools. To supplement our findings, we also designed a survey to assess current park use and resident priorities for future park enhancement projects, which is included in the appendices of our report. 2. Strategically design trails and amenities to overcome barriers and increase accessibility. Park inclusivity can be maximized through accessible trail design, park amenities updates that cater to people with disabilities, culturally appropriate amenities, amenities that cater to diverse age groups, and distribution of educational materials that help to overcome psychological barriers to park access. 3. Carefully evaluate the tradeoffs in considering the creation of privately-owned public space. Despite the indisputable benefits of increased park space, privately-owned public space has been found to be exclusionary and may have irreversible community consequences. The potential for the ‘pricing-out’ of Hopkins’ diverse neighborhoods outweighs the marginal benefits that would be seen with the incentivization and implementation of privately-owned public spaces. 4. Utilize a combination of funding sources for park improvement projects Due to limited community resources, it is essential to creatively combine funding sources to allow for the creation of trails and the update of park amenities without increasing Hopkins residents’ taxes. Multiple private funding sources can be engaged, including grants, equipment rental, and corporate sponsorship. With the careful consideration of these recommendations, we believe that Hopkins’ already robust park system can be elevated to serve the community’s changing needs and become holistically inclusive of all citizens. Ash Management Planning for Urban Forests Wystan Duhn, Ryan Hankins, Nick Bugajski (presenter), Jiaming Huo, Katie Hembre (presenter) Emerald ash borer (EAB) is an invasive species that is expected to severely reduce standing ash tree populations in cities across the United States. EAB’s presence in urban forests presents safety hazards, risks property damage in neighborhoods, and can amount to millions of dollars a year in urban forest management costs around the country. The recent emergence of EAB in Hopkins, Minnesota, is expected to cause more issues for residents and businesses as time progresses. Thus, there is an urgent need to slow the spread of EAB in Hopkins. With the recommendations we provide in this plan, we hope to help the City of Hopkins be best prepared for limiting the spread of EAB within the city and Minnesota. To address the problem of EAB management, we propose Gold, Silver and Bronze recommendations to prevent and treat the spread and infection of EAB. The tiered recommendations give Hopkins various options to respond to EAB with different levels of resources as well as a roadmap for improving ash management strategy if additional become available. Our recommendations include action steps for upcycling wood waste, strategic management practices including removal of trees and other management practice to prevent EAB spread, and forestry budget impacts. Climate Change Adaptation and Urban Forests Sean Lim, Liv Bunde, Clare Grilley (presenter), Cassondra Janssen, Kai Knudson, Abigail Sveen (presenter) The City of Hopkins, Minnesota has the opportunity to adapt to and mitigate climate change impacts by implementing the recommendations presented in the findings of this report. University of Minnesota students collaborated with the city of Hopkins, urban planners, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to create this report which offers the next steps which are tailored to the specifics of Hopkins. These next steps will be for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that the City of Hopkins will be finalizing later this year. This report is the result of that partnership and includes research, data collection methods, and final guidance for Hopkins to use. To complete this report, data collection was done using various data collection and analysis tools, as well as literature review. Using scientific literature and available local data our recommendations are that Hopkins catalog the makeup of its urban canopy within its geographical boundaries, beginning with building out a comprehensive detailed report and database of the species makeup on each street, then expanding to parks and other lands. Then, we recommend that Hopkins prioritize underrepresented tree species that are adapted to future climate projections. Additionally, Hopkins could also plant or maintain existing populations of Oak, Little-leaf linden, and American hophornbeam. In cases where Maple, Aspen, Tamarack, or Elm trees are already planted, it would be beneficial to maintain those trees, instead of replacing them.  HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL BUDGET HEARING PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 30, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Hopkins City Council was held on Monday, November 30, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1010 1st Street South. Mayor Gadd called the meeting to order with Council Members Halverson and Hunke attending. Council Members Beck and Brausen participated via virtual means. Others attending included City Manager Mornson, Assistant City Manager Lenz, City Clerk Domeier, Fire Chief Specken, Accountant Lindbery and Finance Director Bishop. Mayor Gadd provided information on the meeting format and other opening remarks. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Brausen. Second by Halverson. Motion to Adopt the Agenda. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd Nays: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING V.1. 2021 Budget Meeting, 2021 Tax Levy and General and Special Revenue Fund Budgets; Bishop Finance Director Bishop provided a summary of Council Report 2020-095 highlighting the 2021 Tax Levy and General and Special Revenue Fund Budgets. Mayor Gadd opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m. Mayor Gadd read the following comment that was submitted via email: Joshua Zuzek, 314 8th Avenue North, Hopkins, at a time when residents of Hopkins are seeing their wages cut and we head into another period of economic uncertainty, why does the city government think they deserve a raise? Yes, I've seen that cuts were proposed but the net change is an increase; please explain why. Mayor Gadd responded that the essential services are still being offered. The cost to provide services are predicted to increase by a greater amount than the reductions. Paul Domino, resident at 1215 154th Lane Northeast, Ham Lake, and owns a duplex 501 Sunnyside Lane in Hopkins, shared concerns about the tax amount on the city portion. He talked about comparable taxes in other cities. Mayor Gadd talked about the challenge of comparing taxes to other cities and provided information on tax base, infrastructure and services. Assistant City Manager Lenz talked about the age of infrastructure in Hopkins. Motion by Halverson. Second by Hunke.  HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL BUDGET HEARING PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 30, 2020 Motion to Close the Public Hearing. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd Nays: None. Public Hearing closed at 7:35 p.m. Council Member Beck thanked Mr. Bishop for the presentation and talked about the taxes on commercial property. He encouraged the City Council to be mindful of how the increase affects local businesses. Council Member Brausen thanked staff and added he understood Mr. Domino’s concerns and wants continued conversations on lowering the taxes. Mr. Bishop stated that commercial property is taxed different than an apartment building. Council Member Halverson thanked staff for their work on lowering the budget. Council Member Hunke also thanked staff for their work on the budget. He favored moving the budget forward tonight. Mayor Gadd echoed the comments about the work staff has done and the extra budget communications. He talked about planning for future budgets and thanked staff for their work during the pandemic. Motion by Halverson. Second by Hunke. Motion to Adopt Resolution 2020-064 approving the 2021 tax levy and adopting the 2021 General and Special Revenue Fund budgets. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd Nays: None. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Gadd stated the next regular meeting will be on December 1 at 7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further information to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Beck, second by Hunke, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk ATTEST: _____________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor _____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk  HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 1, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Hopkins City Council was held on Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1010 1st Street South. Mayor Gadd called the meeting to order with Council Members Halverson and Hunke attending. Council Members Beck and Brausen participated via virtual means. Others attending included City Manager Mornson, Assistant City Manager Lenz, City Planner Lindahl, City Clerk Domeier, Director of Public Works Stadler, Finance Director Bishop, City Engineer Stanley and City Attorney Riggs. Mayor Gadd provided information on the meeting format and other opening remarks. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Beck. Second by Hunke. Motion to Adopt the Agenda with the removal of New Business Item VII.3. Adopt 2021 Tax Levy and General and Special Revenue Fund Budgets. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd. Nays: None. Motion carried. PRESENTATIONS III.1. Update from Hennepin County Sheriff; Gadd Hennepin County Sheriff David Hutchinson provided an update to the City Council. Mayor Gadd thanked the Sheriff for the cooperation and collaboration between departments. Mayor Gadd also talked about the Hopkins Police Department’s community policing. Sheriff Hutchinson provided information about the county’s community outreach program. Discussion was held about having future updates from Sheriff Hutchinson. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Brausen. Second by Hunke. Motion to Approve the Consent Agenda. 1. Minutes of the November 17, 2020 City Council Regular Meeting Proceedings 2. Second Reading of Ordinance 2020-1159; Domeier 3. Ratify Checks Issued in November 2020; Bishop 4. Approve Encroachment Agreement at 708 Robinwood Lane; Stanley 5. Renewal of General Liability and Property Insurance and Authorize Not Waiving the Statutory Tort Liability of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Policy; Bishop Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd Nays: None. Motion carried.  HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 1, 2020 NEW BUSINESS VII.1. First Reading: Zoning Code Text Amendment Regarding Backyard Chickens Regulations and Single Family Dwelling in R-2 Zoning District; Lindahl City Planner Lindahl provided a summary of Council Report 2020-094 amending the zoning code to allow chickens for single-family dwellings zoned R-2. Motion by Beck. Second by Hunke. Motion to approve Resolution 2020-063 approving the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1160 amending the Hopkins City Code regarding backyard chickens and Single Family Dwelling in the R-2 Zoning District. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd. Nays: None. Motion carried. VII.2. 715 Minnetonka Mills Road (Gethsemane Lutheran Church) - Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Sign at an Institutional Use in a Residential Zone; Lindahl City Planner Lindahl provided a summary of Council Report 2020-093 approving a conditional use permit for a dynamic sign at 715 Minnetonka Mills Road. Council Member Brausen questioned if the sign was used incorrectly how compliance would be monitored. Mr. Lindahl stated the signs are required to be programmed within the set requirements and to shut off during malfunctions. He also provided information about the standards within the conditional use permit. Council Member Hunke questioned the minimum display time. Mr. Lindahl clarified that the minimum display time is twenty minutes. Council Member Halverson questioned the sign size. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the sign plan submitted. Motion by Halverson. Second by Hunke. Motion to adopt Resolution 2020-062, approving a conditional use permit for 715 Minnetonka Mills Road allowing a dynamic sign at an institutional use in a residential zone. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd Nays: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT Nathan Miller, 100 8th Avenue South, encouraged the City Council and staff to create opportunities for citizens to review and learn more about policies regarding public safety as part of the city budget. Mayor Gadd and Council Member Brausen provided more information about the current processes and programs already implemented by the  HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 1, 2020 Hopkins Police Department. Mayor Gadd commented that a similar comment was received from Amy Schneider. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Gadd stated that the Hopkins State of the City event has been postponed. He added that a special meeting is scheduled on December 8 at 6:30 p.m. to consider the refunding of bonds and the next regular meeting will be on December 15 at 7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further information to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Brausen, second by Halverson, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk ATTEST: _____________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor _____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk  HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 8, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the Hopkins City Council was held on Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1010 1st Street South. Mayor Gadd called the meeting to order with Council Members Brausen and Hunke attending. Council Members Beck participated via virtual means. Council Member Halverson joined the meeting shortly thereafter. Others attending included City Manager Mornson, Assistant City Manager Lenz, City Clerk Domeier, Finance Director Bishop and Director of Planning and Development Elverum. Mayor Gadd provided information on the meeting format and other opening remarks. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Brausen. Second by Hunke. Motion to Adopt the Agenda. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Hunke, Gadd. Nays: None. Absent: Halverson. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS VII.1. Award the Sale of $4,385,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2020B; Bishop Finance Director Bishop provided a summary of Council Report 2020-100 recommending that the sale of the bonds be awarded based on the recommendation of Ehlers & Associates for issuance noting the update to the sale amount of $3,990,000. The 2012B and 2013A General Obligation Bonds will be called and prepaid. Mayor Gadd questioned when it is recommended to do a refunding of bonds. Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor at Ehlers & Associates, provided that quarterly reviews are performed to decide when refunding is necessary. Council Member Hunke questioned the bid opening results. Mr. Bishop clarified the bid results and the premium on the bids. Motion by Hunke. Second by Brausen. Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2020-065 Awarding the Sale of General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2020B, in the Original Aggregate Principal Amount of $3,990,000; Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; Providing for Their Payment; and Providing for the Redemption of Bonds Refunded Thereby. Ayes: Beck, Brausen, Halverson, Hunke, Gadd. Nays: None. Motion carried.  HOPKINS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 8, 2020 ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Gadd stated the next City Council regular meeting will be on December 15 at 7 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further information to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Brausen, second by Beck, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk ATTEST: _____________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor _____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk December 15, 2020 Council Report 2020-098 Resolution Designating Polling Places for the 2021 General Election Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 2020-064 Designating Polling Places for the 2021 General Election. Overview Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 92, require the governing body of each municipality to designate the locations of its polling places for the following election year. This designation must be done by resolution. Primary Issues to Consider  Law requires the designation of polling places.  Staff is not recommending any changes to the current polling locations. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends designating the polling places as outlined in Resolution 2020-064. Supporting Documentation  Resolution 2020-064 Amy Domeier, City Clerk Financial Impact: $_________ Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: ________________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): ____________________________________ Notes: _____________________________________________________________  CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-064 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES FOR THE 2021 GENERAL ELECTION WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 204B.16, subd. 1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to designate polling locations for the upcoming year; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling locations may be made at least 90 days before the next election if one or more of the authorized polling places becomes unavailable for use; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling locations may be made in the case of an emergency when it is necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; and WHEREAS, the General Election is November 2, 2021. THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City Hopkins hereby designates the following polling places for elections conducted in the City in 2021: Precinct 1: Mizpah United Church of Christ – Spirit of Peace, 412 5th Ave. N. Precinct 2: Zion Lutheran Church, 241 5th Ave. N. Precinct 3: Hopkins Pavilion, 11000 Excelsior Boulevard Precinct 4: Hopkins Activity Center, 33 14th Ave. N. Precinct 5: Alice Smith Elementary School, 801 Minnetonka Mills Rd Precinct 6: Hopkins Fire Station, 101 17th Ave. S. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to designate a replacement meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling designated in this Resolution that becomes unavailable for use by the City or an emergency replacement polling place meeting the requirements of Minnesota Election Law for any polling place designated in this Resolution when necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting. ADOPTED this 15th day of December, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Hopkins. By ________________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk  MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jason Lindahl, City Planner Date: December 15, 2020 Subject: Second reading of Ordinance 2020-1160 amending the Hopkins City Code regarding backyard chickens and Single Family Dwelling in the R-2 Zoning District and authorizing its publication Proposed Action Move to adopt Resolution 2020-067 approving the second reading of Ordinance 2020-1160 amending the Hopkins City Code regarding backyard chickens and Single Family Dwelling in the R- 2 Zoning District and authorizing its publication. Overview This zoning code text amendment was initiated by staff to make minor revisions to the backyard chickens regulations approved by the City in August of this year. The original intent of the backyard chickens ordinance change was to allow single-family residential uses throughout the city to have the option to have backyard chickens subject to certain restrictions and regulations. Shortly after adoption, it was discovered that the original ordinance did not include single-family dwellings in the R-2 zone. The ordinance amendment now before the City Council would revise the backyard chickens regulations to allow single-family dwellings in the R-2 zone the option to have backyard chicken subject to the same restriction and regulations as single family dwellings in the R-1-A and R- 1-B districts. The version of the ordinance before the City Council for the second reading is essentially the same as the version approved during the first reading. The City Council adopted a motion to approve the first reading of this item on December 1, 2020. Prior to that action by the City Council, the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing and recommended the City Council approve this item on November 24, 2020. Should the City Council approve the second reading of this ordinance, it will make the following changes and take effect upon publication scheduled for December 24, 2020. • Allow 1 Family Dwellings in the R-2 District the option to have backyard chicken subject to the same restriction and regulations as 1 Family Dwellings in the R-1-A and R-1-B districts. • Allow 1 Family Dwellings as a permitted use in the R-2 District. Attachments • Resolution 2020-067 • Ordinance 2020-1160  CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2020-067 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 2020-1160 AMENDING THE HOPKINS CITY CODE CHAPTER 6 AND CHAPTER 102 REGARDING BACKYARD CHICKENS AND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-2 DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING ITS PUBLICATION WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins initiated an application to amend the City Code regarding backyard chickens and single family dwellings in the R-2 district; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application to amend the City Code related to backyard chickens and single family dwellings in the R-2 district was initiated by the City of Hopkins on October 23, 2020; and 2. That the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission, pursuant to published notice, held a public hearing to review such application on November 24, 2020 and all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and 4. That during their November 24, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins approved a motion recommending the City Council approve this item; and 5. That the City Council of the City of Hopkins reviewed this item during their December 1, 2020 meeting, agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and approved Resolution 2020-063 approving the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1160. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Hopkins held a second reading of Ordinance 2020- 1160 during their December 15, 2020 meeting. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, Subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby approves the second reading of Ordinance 2020-1160 amending the City Code regarding backyard chickens and single family dwellings in the R-2 district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance 2020-1160 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:  Public Notice In summary, Ordinance 2020-1160 amends the Hopkins City Code Chapter 6 and Chapter 102 related to backyard chickens in the R-2 District as follows: • Allow 1 Family Dwellings in the R-2 District the option to have backyard chicken subject to the same restriction and regulations as 1 Family Dwellings in the R-1-A and R-1-B districts. • Allow 1 Family Dwellings as a permitted use in the R-2 District. Adopted this 15th day of December, 2020. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk Jason Gadd, Mayor  CITY OF HOPKINS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ORDINANCE NO. 2020-1160 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HOPKINS CITY CODE CHAPTER 6 AND CHAPTER 102 REGARDING BACKYARD CHICKENS AND SIGNLE FAMIL DWELLINGS IN THE R-2 DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Hopkins City Code, Part II, Chapter 6, Article II is hereby amended by adding the double-underlined language as follows: Sec. 6-30. – Chicken licenses. (a) Purpose. The purpose and intent of sections 6-30 through 6-32 is to permit the keeping of chickens in certain residential areas in a manner that is clean and sanitary and unlikely to become a nuisance or otherwise become detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the community. These sections are intended to only allow hens pursuant to the requirements contained herein and the keeping or harboring of roosters and other poultry is expressly prohibited. (b) License required. No person may keep, harbor, maintain, care for, or control chickens in the City without a license issued pursuant to this section. Chicken licenses may only be issued to persons residing in a 1 Family Detached Dwelling located in requesting to keep chickens in the City’s R-1 (R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-1-D, R-1-E) or R-2 zoning districts (R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-1-D, R-1-E). (c) Application for license. A person applying for a chicken license must supply the information required on a City-provided license application, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the number of chickens to be kept, dimensions and materials of a chicken coop and/or chicken run, a site plan showing the location of a proposed chicken coop and/or chicken run in relation to other existing structures and lot lines, and a written plan for keeping the premises clean and free of waste material, objectionable odors, and predators. For non-homesteaded properties, written permission from the owner of the property must also be submitted with any license application. (d) License fee. A license fee may be established by the City and included in the City’s fee schedule, and said fee must be paid at the time of making application. (e) License issuance; term. A license may be issued by the City if all requirements of the Hopkins City Code are deemed satisfied and will remain satisfied upon the issuance of the license under the circumstances proposed. A license shall be valid for two years and a renewal application must be submitted by a licensee at least 30 days prior to license expiration to ensure no lapse in licensure. 2 Sec. 6-31. – Proper confinement, care and maintenance of chickens. (a) Chicken requirements. In addition to obtaining a license, all chicken owners within the City shall adhere to the following requirements: (1) Only hens may be may kept, harbored, maintained, cared for, or controlled in the City. The keeping, harboring, maintaining, caring for, or controlling of roosters or any other poultry is prohibited under all circumstances. (2) The maximum number of chickens allowed shall comply with the information detailed in the table below. Maximum Number of Chickens Allowed in Residential Districts District Number of Chickens Allowed4 R-1-A, & R-1-B or R-2 2 plus 1 additional Chicken for every 4,356 square feet of lot area over 6,000 square feet (maximum of 4). R-1-C 3 plus 1 additional Chicken for every 4,356 square feet of lot area over 12,000 square feet (maximum of 4). R-1-D & R-1-E 4 (3) Chickens must at all times remain confined on the premises and in a chicken coop and/or chicken run located in the property’s rear yard, as that term is defined in Hopkins City Code, section 102-4. (4) Chickens may not be located in any part of a dwelling, garage, or any other accessory structure other than a chicken coop or chicken run, except that chickens under the age of six weeks may be temporarily kept indoors for brooding purposes. (5) Licensees must provide City staff with access to the premises at any time requested to verify compliance with the City’s chicken regulations or in response to any complaint of a violation. (6) The harvesting or butchering of chickens on the premises is prohibited. (7) Selling chickens or chicken eggs on the premises is prohibited. (8) No chickens may be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons or other animals on other properties in the vicinity of the premises, whether due to noise, odor, filth, or otherwise. (9) All grain and food stored for the use of the chickens shall be kept in rodent-proof and leak-proof containers with tight-fitting covers. (10) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, and in good repair. Flies, rodents and objectionable odors shall be contained. 3  (11) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be kept free of accumulated fecal matter and all collected fecal material shall be bagged and properly disposed of at least once a week. Stored fecal matter must be kept in a leak-proof container with a tight-fitting cover until removal from the premises. (12) Chicken feces, discarded chicken feed, and dead chickens shall not be composted. (b) Chicken coop requirements. All chicken coops in the City shall adhere to the following requirements: (1) Must be constructed to adequately keep chickens in and predators out. A coop shall be fully enclosed and wind proof with a well-ventilated roof to prevent escape by chickens or entrance by migratory birds and rodents. (2) Maximum size must comply with the information detailed in the table below and must not exceed seven feet (7') in total height. Maximum Size of Chicken Coop Maximum Number of Maximum Size Chickens Allowed Two (2) Chickens Twelve (12) square feet Three (3) Chickens Eighteen (18) square feet Four (4) Chickens Twenty Four (24) square feet (3) Be screened from view by a fence or landscaped buffer with a minimum height of four (4) feet. A fence shall require a separate permit consistent with the standards in Section 102-13. Landscaping may consist of shrubs or trees but shall provide a minimum 50 percent opacity screen when planted. (4) Provide adequate protection from the elements and be able to be winterized. Heaters are strictly prohibited. (5) Be located in the rear yard of the premises and shall be setback at least five (5) feet from any on-site or adjacent residential structure or business and conform with the property line setbacks detailed in the table below. Chicken Coop Minimum Setback Requirements District Setback from all property lines R-1-A, & 10 Feet from a side (including corner lots) or R-1-B or R-2 rear property line. 3 feet from a rear property line abutting an alley. R-1-C 15 Feet R-1-D & 20 Feet R-1-E (6) May be made mobile, but must meet all requirements of this section at all times and. must be returned to their proper location while unattended or after sunset. 4  (c) Chicken run requirements. All chicken runs in the City shall adhere to the following requirements: (1) The maximum size must comply with the information detailed in the table below and must not exceed seven feet (7’) in total height. Maximum Size of Chicken Run Maximum Number of Maximum Size Chickens Allowed Two (2) Chickens Forty (40) square feet Three (3) Chickens Sixty (60) square feet Four (4) Chickens Eighty (80) square feet (2) Must be enclosed with fencing, weather resistant/green treated wood and/or sealed with a weather resistant product and/or woven wire materials, and may allow chickens to contact the ground. (3) Must have a protective overhead netting to keep the chickens separated from other animals. (4) A fence permit may be required pursuant to Hopkins City Code, Section 102-13. (5) Must be located in the rear yard of the premises and shall be setback at least five (5) feet from any on-site or adjacent residential structure or business and conform with the property line detailed in the table below. Chicken Run Minimum Setback Requirements District Setback from all property lines R-1-A, & 10 Feet from a side (including corner lots) or rear R-1-B or R-2 property line. 3 feet from a rear property line abutting an alley. R-1-C 15 Feet R-1-D & 20 Feet R-1-E (6) May be made mobile, but must meet all requirements of this section at all times and. must be returned to their proper location while unattended or after sunset. Sec. 6-32. – Revocation; denial. (a) A license applied for or issued under section 6-30 may be denied or revoked for any of the following reasons: (1) The licensee has violated any regulation or provision of this code applicable to the keeping, harboring, maintaining, caring for, or controlling of chickens. (2) The licensee has failed to continuously comply with any conditions attached to the license. 5  (3) The licensee has been convicted of any crime in any jurisdiction that relates to the mistreatment of or cruelty toward animals. (4) The licensee has exceeded the maximum number of chickens permitted in their zoning district. (5) The licensee has an active arrest warrant for a Property Maintenance Code or Zoning Ordinance violation pertaining to any property which the licensee, applicant or property manager has a legal or equitable ownership interest or is involved in management or maintenance. (6) The licensee or his or her agent is denying the building official or authorized representative to perform a license review inspection. (7) The licensee or any person(s) who has had an interest in two (2) or more licenses revoked pursuant to this article or canceled pursuant to section 6.32 or a combination of revocations or cancellations shall be ineligible to hold or have an interest in a chicken license for a period of five (5) years. (8) The dwelling is in substandard condition. (9) The owner has allowed weeds, vegetation, junk, debris or rubbish to accumulate repeatedly on the exterior of the premises so as to create a nuisance condition. If the city is required to abate such nuisance conditions, or collect, gather up or haul solid waste more than three (3) times during a period of twelve (12) months or less, it shall be sufficient grounds to deny, revoke, suspend or refuse to renew a license. (b) The city council may revoke a license at any time after giving the licensee at least seven days' notice by registered mail at the licensee's address shown on the license application, or, if no address is shown, at the licensee's last-known address. The notice shall state the intention of the council to revoke the license and the reasons, and it shall give the licensee an opportunity to appear before the council at a date certain for the purpose of being heard with regard to the revocation. SECTION 2. Hopkins City Code Part III, Chapter 102, Article V, Section 102-157 is hereby amended by adding the double-underlined language as follows: Sec. 102-160. - Standards in R Districts. The table below lists permitted uses and minimum standards in R Districts. 6 Permitted Uses: R-1-A R-1-B R-1-C R-1-D R-1-E R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 1-family detached P P P P P P dwelling 2-family dwelling P P 2—4-family dwelling P P Townhouse P P P Multiple dwelling P P P P Hopkins-owned park P P P P P P P P P P and recreation The following are minimums required: Lot area (sq. ft.) 6,000 8,000 12,000 20,000 40,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 16,000 Non-residential use 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Lot area 1 family (sq. 3,500 8,000 12,000 20,000 40,000 3,500 2,600 1,600 1,000 2,600 ft.) Lot width (ft.) 50 60 80 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 Front yard ( ft.) 25 30 30 35 35 35 35 30 30 35 Side yard (ft.) see footnote (2) 15' or ½ the height, 15' or ½ the height, 1-story 8 8 10 10 10 10 whichever is greater whichever is greater 2-story 8 8 12 12 12 12 3-story 10 10 14 14 14 14 Maximum allowed: Percentage of building 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 30 35 coverage 25' or ½ the height, 25' or ½ the height, Rear yard 25 30 35 40 40 35 whichever is greater whichever is greater Dwelling Floor Area (sq. ft.): 1-family 700 800 1,000 1,200 1,200 2-family 700 800 More than 2 Efficiency 520 520 520 520 520 1-bedroom 600 600 600 600 600 2-bedroom 720 720 720 720 720 Over 2-bedroom (700 + 120 for each Bedroom) Building height 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 45 4 story 4 story Open space ratio 1:1.5 1:2.5 1:1 1:1:75 1:1.25 SECTION 3. In accordance with Section 3.03 of the City Charter and Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 4, due to the significant length of this Ordinance, City staff shall have the following summary printed in the official City newspaper in lieu of the complete ordinance: In summary, Ordinance 2020-1160 amends the Hopkins City Code Chapter 6 and Chapter 102 related to backyard chickens in the R-2 District as follows: 7   Allow 1 Family Dwellings in the R-2 District the option to have backyard chicken subject to the same restriction and regulations as 1 Family Dwellings in the R-1-A and R-1-B districts.  Allow 1 Family Dwellings as a permitted use in the R-2 District. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection during regular business hours at Hopkins City Hall and is available online at the City’s web site located at www.hopkinsmn.com. SECTION 4. The effective date of this ordinance shall be the date of publication. First Reading: December 1, 2020 Second Reading: December 15, 2020 Date of Publication: December 24, 2020 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: December 24, 2020 By: ____________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk 8 December 15, 2020 Council Report 2020-101 APPROVE RESOLUTION 2020-066, AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Approve Resolution 2020-066, authorizing amendment to residential recycling grant agreement with Hennepin County. Overview Approving this amendment will result in the continuation of funds received from the Hennepin County Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) grant to support Hopkins’ residential recycling program through December 31, 2021. This amendment also allows the City of Hopkins to be able to receive additional funds to support the Hopkins- Minnetonka organics recycling drop off program. By signing this document, the City of Hopkins agrees to continue to operate its recycling program in accordance with the requirements described in the County’s amended Residential Recycling Funding Policy. Beginning in 2017, SCORE grant funds to support residential curbside recycling programs have been incrementally reduced to support residential curbside organics recycling programs. Since Hopkins does not have a residential curbside organics recycling program, the SCORE grant funds we received were reduced each year. Hennepin County staff have advised that the City can anticipate receiving approximately the same amount of SCORE grant funds in 2021 as was received in 2020. It should be noted that the Hopkins-Minnetonka organics recycling drop off program began in March 2019. Hopkins’ share of the cost for that first year was $741.12. Year SCORE Grant Funds Received 2016 $27,070 2017 $24,750 2018 $21,050 2019 $17,867 2020 $15,306 2021 $15,306* *Subject to change based on available state funding and the number of serviced households in Hennepin County Staff recommends approving this amendment in order to support the residential curbside recycling program and organics recycling drop-off program. Supporting Information • Resolution 2020-066 • Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy _________________________________ Pam Hove, Solid Waste Coordinator Financial Impact: $ _______________ Budgeted: Y/N ________ Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________Notes: _______________________  CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO 2020-066 AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each city implement and maintain a recycling program; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board adopted Resolution No. 20-0197 on June 2, 2020 to amend the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy to allocate 2021 funds using same methodology as 2020, allow funds to be used for organics drop-off sites, and extend the contract period of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, in order to receive grant funds, the City must sign the agreement; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to receive these grant funds in 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, that the City Council accepts the agreement as proposed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the Mayor, City Administrator or his designee to execute such Residential Recycling Grant Agreement with the County. ADOPTED by the Hopkins City Council on December 15, 2020. __________________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2021 Board Adopted: June 2, 2020 I. Policy Description A. Background The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has determined that curbside collection of recyclables and organics from Hennepin County residents is an effective strategy to reduce reliance on landfills, prevent pollution, conserve natural resources and energy, improve public health, support the economy, and reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, the county adopted the goals established in State Statute and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in its Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and developed a Residential Recycling Funding Policy to help reach a 75% recycling rate by 2030. The county will distribute all Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) funds received from the state to cities for curbside collection of residential recyclables and organics. If cities form a joint powers organization responsible for managing a comprehensive recycling and waste education system for the residents of those cities, the county will distribute recycling and organics grants to that organization. Cities are expected to fulfill the conditions of the policy. B. Term of the Policy Hennepin County is committed to implement this policy and continue distributing all SCORE funds received from the state for the purpose of funding curbside residential recycling and organics programs from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. The county may revise this policy if it determines changes are needed to assure compliance with state law and MPCA goals established for metropolitan counties. In the event that SCORE funds are eliminated from the state budget or significantly reduced, the county will consult with municipalities at that time and develop a subsequent recommendation to the board on continuation of this policy and future funding of curbside recycling and organics programs. C. Grant Agreements Each municipality seeking funding under the terms of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy must enter into a recycling grant agreement with the county for a term concurrent with the expiration of this policy, December 31, 2020. The grant agreement must be accompanied by a resolution authorizing the city to enter into such an agreement. D. Fund Distribution The county will distribute to Hennepin County municipalities 100% of SCORE funds that the county receives from the state. SCORE funds will be dedicated to two different purposes: 1) 1 curbside recycling and 2) curbside organics recycling. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management (SWM) tax on garbage services. SCORE funds are subject to change based on the SWM tax revenue received by the state and funds allocated by the legislature. Funds distributed to municipalities for the current calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the county in the state’s corresponding fiscal year. II. Recycling A. Allocation of Funds The following formula will be utilized to determine a city’s recycling SCORE grant each year. Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside recycling: 2017 80% 2018 70% 2019 60% 2020 50% 2021 50% City recycling grant calculation: Number of households with curbside recycling in city Total SCORE Recycling grant ------------------------------- x Funds available = amount available Total number of households for recycling to the city with curbside recycling in county Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight-plex residential buildings or other residential buildings where each housing unit sets out its own recycling container for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. The city will report the number in its application for funding. B. Application for Funding Each municipality must complete an annual grant application by February 15 to receive funding for that year. The application consists of a web-based report and a planning document provided 2 by the county. The web-based report asks for contract, program, tonnage, and financial information. The participation rate for the curbside recycling program must also be included in the web-based report. The municipality must calculate its participation rate during the month of October. The methodology for measuring participation must be provided to the county upon request. The planning document asks for a description of activities the city will implement to increase recycling and make progress toward county objectives. C. Use of Funds The following requirements apply to the use of recycling funds: 1. All grant funds accepted from the county must be used for waste reduction and recycling capital and operating expenses in the year granted. The county will not reimburse any funds in excess of actual expenses. 2. A municipality or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees, or any other method for the portion of its recycling program costs that are funded by county grant funds. 3. Municipalities must establish a separate accounting mechanism, such as a project number, activity number, or fund that will separate recycling revenues and expenditures from other municipal activities, including solid waste and yard waste activities. 4. Recycling and waste reduction activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit. 5. Municipalities that do not contract for curbside recycling services will receive grant funds provided that at least 90% of the grant funds are credited back to residents and the city meets all minimum program requirements. The additional 10% may be used for waste reduction and recycling expenses. The county may waive this requirement if the city negotiates a recycling improvement plan with the county. D. City Requirements 1. Materials Accepted At a minimum, the following materials must be collected curbside: • Metal food and beverage cans; • Glass food and beverage containers; • Cardboard boxes; • Newspaper and inserts; 3  • Mail, office and school papers; • Cereal, cracker, pasta, cake mix, shoe, gift, and electronics boxes; • Boxes from toothpaste, medications and other toiletries; • Magazines and catalogs; • Aseptic and gable-topped containers; and • Plastic bottles and containers, #1 – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE), #2 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), #4 – Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and #5 – Polypropylene (PP) plastic bottles, except those that previously contained hazardous materials or motor oil. The county may add materials to this list and require municipalities to begin collection within one year of receiving notification from the county. Municipalities will notify the county if materials not found on this list will be collected. 2. Education and Outreach The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in educating residents and motivating behavior change. In order to continue this partnership and increase these efforts, program activities of municipalities must be coordinated with county and regional efforts. Municipalities must adhere to the following requirements: a. Use county terminology when describing recycling guidelines, including the description of materials accepted and not accepted, preparation guidelines, and promotional materials; b. Use images provided by the county or the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) if using images of recyclables; c. Provide recycling information on the city’s website, including materials accepted and not accepted, a recycling calendar, and links to county resources; d. Mail a recycling guide to residents each year using a template developed jointly with the county. The county will design and print the guide. If a municipality does not use the template produced by the county, the municipality may develop its own guide at the municipality’s expense, but it must be approved by the county. If the municipality relies on the hauler to provide the recycling guide, this guide requires approval by the county. e. Complete two educational activities from a menu of options developed by the county. 4  Any print material that communicates residential recycling guidelines that were not provided by the county template will require county approval. This does not apply to waste reduction and reuse, articles on recycling that do not include guidelines, or social media posts. The county will respond within five business days to any communication piece submitted. 3. Recycling Performance On an annual basis, municipal recycling programs must demonstrate that a reasonable effort has been made to maintain and increase the pounds of recyclables per household collected from their residential recycling programs. If a municipality does not demonstrate measurable progress, a recycling improvement plan must be submitted by the municipality within 90 days of being notified by the county. The recycling improvement plan must be negotiated with the county and specify the efforts that will be undertaken by the municipality to improve its recycling program to yield the results necessary to achieve county objectives. In cooperation with the county, the municipality may be required to participate in waste and recycling sorts to identify recovery levels of various recyclables in its community. Based on the results of the study, the county and municipality will collaborate to increase the recovery of select recyclable materials being discarded in significant quantities. E. Grant Payments The county will make two equal payments to the municipality. One payment will be made after the county receives the application, which consists of the web-based report and the planning document. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and outreach requirements, and recycling performance have been confirmed and approved. If the municipality meets the county requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. Funding will be withheld until the municipality meets the requirements of this policy. III. Organics Recycling A. Allocation of Funds The following formula will be utilized to determine a city’s organics recycling SCORE grant each year: 5 Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside organics recycling: 2017 20% 2018 30% 2019 40% 2020 50% 2021 50% City organics recycling grant calculation: Number of households with curbside organics in city Total SCORE Organics grant --------------------------------- x funds available for = amount available Total number of households organics to the city with curbside organics in county If the formula above results in cities receiving grants where the dollar amount per participating household is greater than $25 per year, then a cap will apply. The funding cap per participating household is $25 per year. The most the county will grant a city is $25 per participating household per year. If funds are left over because of the cap, those funds will carry over into the following year’s SCORE funds. Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight-plex residential buildings or other residential buildings where the household is signed up for organics service and the household sets out its own container with organics for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on September 1 of each funding year. The city will report the number in the application for funding. B. Application for Funds Each municipality must complete an annual application provided by the county by September 1 to receive funding. As a part of the application, a city must submit the number of households signed up for and receiving curbside organics service. C. Use of Funds The grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following: • Discount to new customers • Discount to existing customers 6  • Referral incentives • City contract costs • Education and outreach • Compostable bags • Kitchen containers • Carts • Organics drop-off sites Program administration is not an eligible expense. Yard waste expenses are not eligible. If organics are co-collected with other waste, the organics expenses must be tracked separately. If a city passes funds through to a hauler, 100% of those funds must be credited to residents’ bills. In addition, the following requirements apply: • All grant funds must be used during the term of the agreement. Funds not spent must be returned to the county. • Funds must be expended on eligible activities per Minnesota State Statute 115A.557. • A municipality or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees, or any other method for the portion of its organics program costs that are funded by county grant funds. • Municipalities must account for organics expenditures separately upon request by the county. Expenditures are subject to audit. D. Education and Outreach Requirements The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in educating residents and motivating behavior change. In order to continue this partnership and increase these efforts, program activities of municipalities must be coordinated with county and regional efforts. The following requirements apply: 1. Use county terminology when describing organics recycling guidelines, including the description of materials accepted and not accepted, preparation guidelines, and promotional materials; 2. Use images provided by the county or the SWMCB if using images of organic materials; 3. Provide organics recycling information on the city’s website, including material accepted and not accepted, service options, and links to county resources; 4. Work with the county to develop promotional resources to increase participation. 7 E. Reporting A report on the city’s organics program must be submitted electronically to the county by February 15 following each year. The report must include, but is not limited to, the following: Basic Program Information • Hauler(s) • Collection method • Where organics were delivered to and processed • Is service opt-in or opt-out • Cost of service to residents; contract cost for city • How the service was billed • Items included in service, such as curbside collection, cart, compostable bags, etc. Results • Tons • Number of households signed up • Average pounds per household per year • Participation (set-out rate on pickup day) • Program costs • How funds were used F. Grant Payment The county will make one organics grant payment to a municipality each year. The payment will be made after the county receives the application and confirms that the municipality meets the requirements of this policy. 8 December 15, 2020 Council Report 2020-099 ORDINANCE REPLEALING CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE II OF THE HOPKINS CITY CODE REGARDING TRUTH IN HOUSING Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt for first reading Ordinance 2020- 1161 An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 20, Article II of the Hopkins City Code Regarding Truth in Housing. Overview Staff has been reviewing process improvements over the past year and evaluating the cost benefit of various services. One area there is an opportunity for efficiency with minimal impacts is by eliminating Truth in Housing Inspection requirements. Truth in Housing Evaluations are required for the sale of residential buildings with one, two, three or four dwelling units (including condos and townhouses). Private evaluators licensed by the city do the evaluations and internal staff support to assist with the inspection. These evaluations provide prospective buyers with information about the condition of the house and garage. Completed evaluation reports must be filed with the city along with a filing fee of $35.00 per evaluation. Reports are valid for one year from the date of the evaluation and are non-transferable. A new evaluation must be conducted for each sale. Any “Repair” or “Replace” items on the evaluation have to be corrected. Once the corrections are made, a City Inspector goes out to verify the work was done. These inspections have a cost to the homeowners of approximately $200 - $500 per inspection. The inspections can be stressful for both the seller, buyer of the property and staff since they can hold up home sales and are often overlooked as closing requirements. The City receives $35 per evaluation or approximately $11,000/year to supplement the cost of this service. Staff estimates the internal cost of these services to be roughly 0.7 FTE (split among multiple employees) or approximately $67,000/year. Staff has proposed temporary staffing reductions in the inspections division related to rental inspections being suspended due to COVID-19. The elimination of Truth in Housing will allow us to be able to redistribute work related to those reductions internally and better manage the impact of the temporary staffing reductions. Beyond the workload efficiencies, there will be a cost savings to homeowners during the home sale process. Staff believes the service impact to homeowners will be minimal since almost all homebuyers have a private home inspection prior to purchase. Staff will continue to monitor for any quality impacts, if any, on the City’s housing. Based on these factors, Staff is recommending removing Truth in Housing requirements outlined in City Code Chapter 20 Article II at this time. The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Supporting Documents  Proposed Ordinance 2020-1161 Christopher Kearney, Building Official  CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2020-1161 ORDINANCE REPLEALING CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE II OF THE HOPKINS CITY CODE REGARDING TRUTH IN HOUSING THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Hopkins City Code Chapter 20, Article II is repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be the date of publication. First Reading: December 15, 2020 Second Reading: January 5, 2021 Date of Publication: January 14, 2021 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: January 14, 2021 BY THE CITY COUNCIL Jason Gadd, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk