City Council Workshop

AGENDA City Council Workshop Workshop September 14, 2021 Hadley Room 5:00 PM Fiscal Disparities Overview 5:30 PM Recreation Department Summer Programs Overview 5:45 PM Proposed Ordinance: UTVs 6:15 PM Communications Consultant 6:35 PM Council Topics 6:50 PM Adjourn for Regular Meeting  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jason Zimmerman, Finance Director Date: September 14, 2021 Subject: Fiscal Disparities Overview The Minnesota Fiscal Disparities program that provides for the partial sharing of commercial-industrial property tax base. The metro area tax sharing program was created in 1971 and first implemented in 1975 as an alternative to consolidation and annexation of local governments. Additionally, Fiscal Disparities was aimed at other concerns including changes in tax rates, rate disparities, and competition for development between communities. The Fiscal Disparities program is relevant to elected officials as it impacts the local taxes paid and the affiliated tax capacity rate. The Charles R. Weaver Metropolitan Revenue Redistribution Act of 1971 (the act that created the fiscal disparities program) requires all taxing authorities within the seven-county metro area (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties) contribute forty percent of post-1971 commercial-industrial growth into a pool for redistribution. The redistribution is based on population and ratio of market value per capita to the average market value in the region. The sharing program provides more benefit to jurisdictions with lower than average market value per capita, with higher than average market value per capita receiving a lower portion. Based on the results of the metro area program, a similar version was enacted in 1995 within the Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota. According to the MN House Research, 37.4% of all commercial-industrial property taxes were paid through fiscal disparities, and the program accounts for 10% of the total tax base in the metropolitan area. For commercial-industrial properties, average taxes were 13.3 percent lower in Columbia Heights due to fiscal disparities and 12.4 percent higher in Eden Prairie. Commercial-industrial property tax impacts elsewhere in the metro area generally fall between these extremes. 2021 Contribution Calculation – City of Oakdale (A) (B) (C) (D) 1971 Total C/I Tax 2019/Pay 2020 2019/Pay 2020 Final Pay 2021 Contribution Capacity Total C/I Increase over 1971 Tax Capacity (B)-(A) 40%x(C) 89,161 9,790,339 9,701,178 3,880,464 2021 Distribution Calculation – City of Oakdale (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) 2019 Fiscal Average Fiscal Total Metro Distribution Local Total Metro Area Tax Population Capacity* Capacity/Local Distribution Index Index/Metro Contribution Base Fiscal Index Index Distribution Capacity** (A)X(C) (E)/(D) (F)X(G) 27,930 98,902.65 1.243435 3,431,754 34,729 .0101198979 499,833,442 5,058,774 *Fiscal Capacity is defined as equalized market value per capita **Metro Average Fiscal Capacity = 122,978.98 Calculating the impact of Fiscal Disparities and City Taxes for 2021 (Chart below) A3: Values in the City of Oakdale are determined ($34,563,288) A4: Fiscal Disparity Contribution is removed ($3,880,464) A5: Tax Increment District values are removed ($1,234,695) A6: Values after TIF and FD for Local Tax Capacity Calculation ($29,958,475) A7: Fiscal Disparity Distribution ($5,058,774) B1: Fiscal Disparity Adjustment (Fiscal Disparity Distribution (A7) multiplied by the prior year’s tax capacity rate (C2); $5,058,774 x 37.617%) = $1,902,942 B2: Taxpayer Levy (Total Tax Levy (B3) less the Fiscal Disparity Adjustment (B1); $13,532,996 - $1,902,942) = $11,630,054 C2: Oakdale Tax Capacity Rate (Oakdale Taxpayer Levy (B2) divided by Values after Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment Financing Districts (A6); $11,630,054 / $29,958,475) = 38.821% Without Fiscal Disparities for 2021 the tax capacity rate would increase by 3.0% to 39.992% Attachments • Fiscal Disparities 101 • Fiscal Disparities Key Finds for Taxes Payable 2021 • Fiscal Disparities 2021 Net Receipts / Net Contributors • The Fiscal Disparities Program – MN House Research  FISCAL DISPARITIES 101 SEPTEMBER 2019 Local government units within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, which is comprised of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington, have participated in a property tax base sharing program known as Metropolitan Fiscal Disparities since 1975. A similar program began in 1996 for local government units in the Taconite Area, which includes portions of the counties of St. Louis, Itasca, Crow Wing, and Aitkin, and all of Lake and Cook counties. Under these programs, a portion of the growth in commercial, industrial, and public utility property value of each community is contributed to a tax base sharing pool. Each community receives a distribution of property value from the pool based on the market value and population of each city. Contribution Cities that have relatively less market value per capita receive a relatively larger The contribution to the pool is equal to 40 distribution from the pool than cities with percent of the growth in commercial, greater market value wealth per capita. industrial, and public utility value since the base year (1971 for the Twin Cities; 1995 for the Taconite Area). This measure of growth How are property taxes generated? The tax capacity contributed to the pool includes both new construction and ultimately translates into property tax dollars inflationary increases in existing property for each local government. These property values. In 2019, for example, the total taxes, also known as the distribution levy, are amount of tax capacity contributed to the computed for each local government by Metropolitan fiscal disparities pool was $447 multiplying its distribution value by its prior million. The contribution value is not year tax capacity rate. The distribution levy available for local tax purposes and therefore, represents the amount of each local the contribution value must be subtracted government’s certified levy raised through from the total tax capacity of each the fiscal disparities program. The balance of community before the local tax rate is the certified levy is used to compute the local computed. The Taconite Area program is much smaller, with just over $11.3 million of tax rate. tax capacity contributed in 2018. How are commercial/industrial and Distribution utility parcels taxed? The tax capacity contributed to the pool is Commercial and industrial properties are not based on a distribution index. This index taxed twice. Instead, a portion of each compares each city’s total market value per commercial or industrial property’s tax capita to the average market value per capita capacity is taxed at the area-wide tax capacity for all cities and towns in the seven counties. rate and the balance is taxed at the total local tax rate. As a simple example, in a Assessment of the program’s success in community where exactly 40 percent of all accomplishing the second of these goals commercial, industrial, and utility property is often points out the “winners,” cities that are contributed to the fiscal disparities pool, 40 net recipients, and “losers,” cities that are net percent of each parcel’s value is taxed at the contributors. Proponents of the program area-wide tax rate and 60 percent is taxed at focus on the relative uniformity of the the total local tax rate. In 2016 (most recent taxation of commercial and industrial data available), for example, the Twin Cities property across the metropolitan area and the area-wide tax rate was 150.262 percent and stability the net contributors provide to the the Taconite Area-wide tax rate was 160.736 region as a whole. They argue that greater percent. uniformity and stability give the entire region a competitive edge in national and global Policy Issues marketplaces. The original intent of the program was articulated through the following six The critics of the system argue that the objectives: contribution rate of 40 percent is arbitrary • Provide a way for local governments and that the distribution formula is solely to share resources generated by based on the relative property tax base wealth regional growth; of each city. Also, the formula uses non- • Encourage orderly urban development adjusted assessment levels. Cities with high by reducing competition for assessment levels contribute more tax base commercial and industrial than cities with lower levels, creating a development; disincentive to raise the assessment level. • Establish incentives for regional cooperation; Within cities, property classes can experience • Provide a way for regional resources the impacts of tax base sharing differently. to be available through the existing Declines in the market values for Twin Cities system of local governments; area commercial/industrial properties in the early 1990's not only directly shifted property • Make resources available to tax burdens to other types of property, they communities at the beginning stages also reduced the amount of commercial and of development or redevelopment; industrial valuation contributed to the fiscal and disparities pool. As a result, the total • Encourage environmental protection. distribution levy generated through the fiscal disparities program was also reduced. In the Descriptions of the program, such as those mid-1990’s, market value rebounds reversed offered by the Minnesota House of this trend. But reductions in the Representatives Research Department and commercial/industrial and public utility the Metropolitan Council, often highlight two property tax class rates by the 1997-2001 main goals that encapsulate several of the Legislatures slowed growth in the tax original objectives: capacity of both the Metropolitan and • Promote orderly urban planning and Taconite Area fiscal disparities pools. When development; and the amount of this distribution levy declines • Work towards a more equitable or grows more slowly than the total tax base, distribution of fiscal resources. a greater share of the local tax bill is paid by other types of properties, including the 2 portion of each commercial, industrial, and utility property value taxed at the local tax rate. Resources House Research: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/topics.asp?topic=21 The Metropolitan Council https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/Fiscal-Disparities.aspx 3 FISCAL DISPARITIES IN TWIN CITIES: KEY FINDINGS FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 2021 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAX BASE SHARED IN THE SEVEN-COUNTY METRO AREA • Nearly $500 million in shared pool of areawide tax base (net tax capacity) • 33% of total commercial, industrial and public utility property tax base • 10% of total taxable tax base (fully taxable net tax capacity) TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE SHARED • Over $697 million in tax revenue for local taxing jurisdictions • Revenue goes to cities, townships, counties, school districts and special taxing districts NET RECIPIENTS AND NET CONTRIBUTORS Number of net recipients • 110 communities - 89 cities and 21 townships • Distribution of shared tax base is more than contribution of tax base to shared pool Net recipients as share of metro area • 34% of commercial, industrial and public utility property tax base • 43% of commercial, industrial and public utility property tax base with net changes from fiscal disparities (distribution of shared tax base minus contribution of tax base to shared pool) • 43% of total taxable tax base • 54% of population Top five net recipients • St. Paul, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Center, and Columbia Heights Number of net contributors • 69 communities - 48 cities and 21 townships plus State Fair Grounds • Contribution of tax base to shared pool is more than distribution of shared tax base Net contributors as share of metro area • is that65% of commercial, industrial and public utility property tax base • 56% of commercial, industrial and public utility property tax base with net changes from fiscal disparities (distribution of shared tax base minus contribution of tax base to shared pool) • 56% of total taxable tax base • 45% of population Top five net contributors • Minneapolis, Bloomington, Edina, Plymouth, and Eden Prairie Top 20 net contributors as share of total commercial-industrial tax base • 60% of commercial, industrial and public utility property tax base in metro area March 2021 Metropolitan Council Main: 651.602.1000 390 Robert Street North TTY: 651.291.0904 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Public Information: 651.602.1500 public.info@metc.state.mn.us metrocouncil.org  The Fiscal Disparities Program: Commercial- Industrial Tax-Base Sharing December 2020 The fiscal disparities program The fiscal disparities program is a system for the partial sharing of commercial-industrial (C/I) property tax base among all jurisdictions within a geographic area. In Minnesota, the program operates in two areas: the first one was enacted in 1971 and operates in the seven counties of the Twin Cities metropolitan area; a second version was enacted in 1995 and operates within the Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota. Goals of tax-base sharing The main purposes and goals of the program are to:  Support a regional approach to development. Tax-base sharing spreads the fiscal benefit of business development spawned by regional facilities, such as shopping centers, airports, freeway interchanges, and sports stadiums. It also may make communities more willing to accept low-tax-yield regional facilities, such as parks.  Equalize the distribution of fiscal resources. Communities with low tax bases must impose higher tax rates to deliver the same services as communities with higher tax bases. These high tax rates make tax-base poor communities less attractive places for businesses to locate or expand in, exacerbating the problem. Sharing C/I tax base can reduce this effect.  Reduce competition for commercial-industrial development. Communities generally believe that some kinds of C/I properties pay more in taxes than it costs to provide services to them. This encourages communities to compete for these properties by providing tax concessions or extra services, which can weaken their fiscal condition. Tax-base sharing reduces the incentive for this competition, thereby discouraging urban sprawl and reducing the cost of providing regional services such as sewage and transportation. How the fiscal disparities program works Contributions to the areawide tax base. Each taxing jurisdiction annually contributes 40 percent of the growth in its C/I tax base since the year of enactment to an abstract entity called the “areawide tax base.” This contribution value is not available for taxation by the jurisdictions where the property is located. Distributions from the areawide tax base. Each municipality receives a share of the areawide tax base through a formula based on its share of the area’s population and its relative property tax wealth (tax base per capita). The municipality is allowed to tax this distribution value at the same rate as the tax rate paid by its residents. This is known as the municipality’s distribution levy. All taxing jurisdictions whose boundaries encompass the municipality are also allowed to tax the municipality’s distribution value (i.e., counties, school districts, and special taxing districts). By Jared Swanson, 651-296-5044  The Fiscal Disparities Program: Commercial-Industrial Tax-Base Sharing Calculating the property tax for each commercial-industrial property. The property tax statement for each C/I property has a local portion and an areawide portion, based on the relative amount of the tax base that is contributed and the amount that is retained by the municipality where the property is located. The local portion is subject to local tax rates. The areawide portion is subject to the areawide rate, which is determined by dividing the sum of each taxing jurisdiction’s distribution levy by the areawide tax base. Amount of tax base redistributed through the programs In 2020, 37.4 percent of all local commercial-industrial property taxes are paid through fiscal disparities, and the areawide tax base accounts for 10 percent of the total tax base in the metropolitan area. In the Iron Range program, 28.6 percent of all local commercial-industrial property taxes are paid through fiscal disparities, and the areawide tax base constitutes 6 percent of the total tax base on the Iron Range. Effects of the metro area program A House Research Department study based on taxes payable in 2018 found that the average homestead tax in Columbia Heights, which is one of the largest net beneficiaries of the program, was 18.0 percent lower because of fiscal disparities. The study found that the average homestead tax in Rogers, which is one of the largest net contributors, was 4.6 percent higher. Homestead effects throughout the area generally varied between these extremes. For commercial-industrial properties, average taxes were 13.3 percent lower in Columbia Heights due to fiscal disparities and 12.4 percent higher in Eden Prairie, another suburban city that is a large net contributor. Commercial-industrial property tax impacts elsewhere in the metro area generally fall between these extremes. The study looked only at the direct effect of fiscal disparities, that is, the redistribution of tax base, and made no attempt to factor in alternative development patterns that might have occurred without fiscal disparities. Effects of the Iron Range program The same study found that the average homestead tax in McKinley (St. Louis County) was 45.6 percent lower because of fiscal disparities, while homestead taxes in Nashwauk (Itasca County) were 6.9 percent higher, with other municipalities generally falling between those extremes. For commercial-industrial properties, average taxes were 31.3 percent lower in Kinney (St. Louis County) due to fiscal disparities and 19.9 percent higher in Emily (Crow Wing County). Commercial-industrial property tax impacts elsewhere on the Iron Range generally fall between these extremes. For more information: See the House Research report Minnesota's Fiscal Disparities Programs, which provides a more comprehensive overview of the program. A report showing the impact of the fiscal disparities program by municipality can be viewed at: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/csim18B3.pdf. Minnesota House Research Department provides nonpartisan legislative, legal, and information services to the Minnesota House of Representatives. This document can be made available in alternative formats. www.house.mn/hrd | 651-296-6753 | 600 State Office Building | St. Paul, MN 55155  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Christina Volkers, City Administrator Date: September 14 2021 Subject: Proposed Code Amendment: Chapter 12 – Utility Task Vehicles As has been discussed in a past council work session, one resident has inquired and asked for consideration of authorized use of UTV’s in Oakdale. As such, the City Council directed staff to do further research while outlining options and any possible concerns Much research has been done on this subject. It should be noted that there are few communities found in Minnesota that currently allow Utility Task Vehicles (UTVs). Staff has acquired a copy of an ordinance recently adopted by the City of Anoka that allows UTVs on city streets. City staff drafted a proposed ordinance amendment using Anoka’s ordinance as a framework (see attached). A significant modification between the ordinances is that city staff recommends limiting UTVs on city streets that are 30 MPH or less; whereas, Anoka’s ordinance allows them on streets that are 35 MPH or less. Although UTVs have the ability to reach speeds up to 60 MPH, public safety staff have expressed significant safety concerns for UTV operators, passengers, other vehicles, and pedestrians if speeds in excess of 30 MPH were allowed. The majority of Oakdale’s streets are 30 MPH, so UTV operations would have ample opportunity to travel in the community but would need to avoid the sections of collector streets (Granada, Hadley, Helmo, 15th, and 40th) posted above 30 MPH. Further, as outlined below, state statute limitations will likely cause confusion and enforcement challenges. UTV permits would be processed by the Licensing Division and would entail a one-page application and submittal of a certificate of insurance; no permit fee is being recommended. State Statute Regulations and Limitations Per Minnesota State Statute 169.045, cities may pass an ordinance that would authorize the operation of UTVs on designated roadways or portions thereof, by permit. The ordinance must designate the roadways, detail a permit process, require insurance, and prescribe other conditions such as required equipment. State Statute 169.045 also dictates that vehicles may only be operated on designated roadways from sunrise to sunset, unless properly equipped with required lights; may not operate in inclement weather, except during emergency conditions noted in an ordinance, or when visibility is impaired; display a “Slow Moving Vehicle” (SMV) emblem; and that drivers must adhere to all traffic laws that apply to any other vehicles, except those that cannot be applied to a UTV. Cities may require additional regulations such as equipment: windshields, rearview mirrors, and seat belts; or allowing travel during certain times of year. Council Direction Requested It is requested that Council decide if they wish to proceed with a code amendment to allow the use of UTVs in Oakdale. If so, then direction must be given on rules and expectations given the information provided above. Alternatively, the City Council could edit or support the attached code amendment to Chapter 12, and if so, then it is asked that the City Council direct staff to post the proposed ordinance on the city’s web page, as required, and bring forth an ordinance amendment to the September 28, 2021, City Council regular meeting.  PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The City Council will consider adoption of this ordinance at its ______________, 2021 meeting. CITY OF OAKDALE ORDINANCE xxx AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF OAKDALE, CHAPTER 12 – MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC AMENDING, ADDING ARTICLE 8 – UTILITY TASK VEHICLES. The City Council of the City of Oakdale ordains: Section 1. The Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12, is hereby amended to add the following article: ARTICLE 8. UTILTY TASK VEHICLES Sec. 12-50. Purpose. Pursuant to its authority under MN Statutes § 169.045, the City authorizes the operation of utility task vehicles on designated public rights-of-way as permitted under this article. Sec. 12-51. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this article, shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Authorized Operator. Only persons 18 years of age or older who hold a valid driver’s license, per MN Statutes 171.01.49(a) may operate a UTV on designated public rights-of-ways. City means City of Oakdale, Minnesota. Community and Special Events means events sponsored, co-sponsored, or supported by the City. Community and special events may also include celebrations approved by the City and organized by a nonprofit, community based organization intended to serve the entire community. Designated Public Rights-of-Way means the public rights-of-way, including streets, listed in Sec. 12-53 on which UTVs may operate. Owner means a person having a property interest or title to all all-terrain vehicle and entitled to the use and possession of the vehicle. Utility Task Vehicle or UTV as defined by MN Statutes 169.045, Subd. 1 (3). Sec. 12-52. Permit Required. (a) Required. No UTV may be operated on a designated public right-of-way without first obtaining a permit from the City. (b) Permit Location. A permit in the form of a sticker issued by the City is required to be affixed to the lower center windshield area or other visible location on the front center of the UTV. (c) Term of Permit. Permits may be granted for a period of up to three years. (d) Insurance. The applicant must provide, and submit with the permit application, evidence of insurance and every UTV operator shall have proof of insurance in possession while operating the UTV on designated public rights-of-way and shall produce such proof of insurance on demand of a police officer as defined in MN Statutes § 169.791. Sec. 12-53. Operating Conditions. (a) Designated Public Rights-of-Way. UTVs may be operated on all local City streets within the limits of the City that have a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or less. (b) Restricted Areas. UTVs may not operate on: (1) Any trail within the City. (2) Any area posted that prohibits UTVs; (3) Union Pacific Railroad rights-of-way; (4) City sidewalks or trails; (5) Highways; (6) Public or private property unless permission is posted by the property owner; (7) Within grassy boulevard and/or ditch areas of local City streets; (8) Public parks and open space or natural areas. (c) Crossing Intersecting State/County Highways and Local Streets. The operator, under permit, of a UTV may cross any state/county highway or local City street intersecting a designated public right-of-way at a signalized intersection intersecting the designated public right-of- way. (d) Time of Operation. UTVs may only be operated on the designated public rights-of-way and trails from sunrise to sunset. UTVs shall not be operated in inclement weather or when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog, or other conditions, or at any time when there is insufficient light to clearly see persons and vehicles on the public right-of-way at a distance of 500 feet. (e) UTV Safety Equipment Requirements. All UTVs shall have a rear view mirror as defined in MN Statutes § 169.70. (f) Application of Traffic Laws. Every person operating a UTV under permit on designated public rights-of-way have all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under MN Statutes § 169.045, Subd. 6, except when those provisions cannot be reasonably applied. (g) Parking of UTV. UTVs must be parked in designated public parking stalls or areas used by automobiles only. No parking is permitted on public sidewalks, public parks, public boulevard areas or other similar public areas. (h) Towing. UTVs may not be used to tow on any public property. (i) Exemptions: (1) City Operations. The City police, fire, and public works departments are authorized to utilize UTVs to carry out their operations and are exempt from all requirements under this article. (2) Golf Course Operations. Authorized UTVs utilized on property associated with the Oak Marsh Golf Course and Event Center are exempt from all requirements under this article. (3) Community or Special Events. UTVs on public streets during parades and special events by event organizers, and others authorized by the City for such use, are exempt from all requirements under this article. The police chief or his appointee shall determine if an event qualifies for the exemption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, additional conditions and/or restrictions may be imposed upon individuals authorized to use UTVs on City streets under this article. (4) Private Property. UTVs utilized on private property, by the property owner or with the property owner's express permission, are exempt from all requirements of this article. Sec. 12-54. Revocation of Permit. A permit may be revoked at any time for violating any provision of this division, after investigation bythe police department and final determination by the police chief or his appointee. Sec. 12-55. Appeal. Any permit revocation may be appealed to the city council by providing a written request for an appeal within 10 business days of the revocation to the city clerk. The revocation will remain in full forceand effect until the appeal process has been completed. Sec. 12-56. Violation; Penalty. Any person violating the terms of this division may lose their permit to operate a UTV on public rights-of-way in the City and, upon conviction for any such violation, may be found guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in accordance with the penalties established. CHAPTER 66. ARTICLE IV. Golf Carts, UTVs And Similar Vehicles _______ *State law reference—Special Vehicle Use on Roadway, Minn. Stats. § 169.045 _______ DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Secs. 66-241-66-270 Reserved. DIVISION 2.- USE OF MOTORIZED GOLF CARTS AND UTILITY TASK VEHICHLES Sec. 66-271. - Purpose. Pursuant to its authority under M.S.A. § 169.045, the city authorizes the operation of motorized golf carts or utility task vehicles on designated public rights-of-way as permitted under this article. (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-202, 3-19-2018) Sec. 66-272. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Authorized operator. Only persons 21 18 years of age or older may operate a motorized golf cart or a UTV on designated public rights-of-way. Community and special events means events sponsored, co-sponsored or supported by the city. Community and special events may also include celebrations approved by the city and organized by a nonprofit, community based organization intended to serve the entire community. Designated public rights-of-way means the public rights-of-way, including streets or trails, listed in section 66-237 on which motorized golf carts or UTVs may operate. Motorized golf cart means a self-propelled three- or four-wheel vehicle of the type and style designated for and commonly used for transportation on a golf course. Police department means the city police department. UTV or utility task vehicles means a side-by-side, four-wheel drive that has four wheels propelled by a motorized internal combustion engine and has a total dry weight of at least 1,800 pounds but less than 2,600 pounds. This type of motorized vehicle can be classified as a Class 2 ATV. (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-203, 3-19-2018) Sec. 66-273. - Permit required. (a) Required. No motorized golf cart or UTV may be operated on a designated public right-of-way without first obtaining a permit from the city. (b) Permit application. Permit applications require approval of the police department and must contain the following information: (1) Registered owner's name, address, and telephone number; (2) Make, model, and vehicle identification number if available; (3) Proof of insurance for the motorized golf cart or UTV; (4) Other information as required by the police department. (c) Sticker location. A permit in the form of a sticker issued by the police department is required to be affixed to the lower center windshield area or other visible location on the front center of the motorized golf cart or UTV. (d) Inspection. As part of the permit process, the police department may require applicants to have their motorized golf carts or UTVs inspected by the police department. (e) Education. As part of the permit process, the police department may require the applicant to demonstrate their knowledge in the use of hand signals for turning and stopping. A person born after July 1, 1987 must possess a MN DNR ATV safety certificate to operate a UTV. (f) Fee. The city council may establish an annual fee for a permit. (g) Term of permit. Permits maybe granted for a period of up to three years. (h) Insurance. The applicant must provide, and submit with the permit application, evidence of insurance complying with the provisions of M.S.A. § 65B.48, subd. 5. Every motorized golf cart or UTV operator shall have proof of insurance in possession while operating the motorized golf cart or UTV on designated public rights-of-way and shall produce such proof of insurance on demand of a police officer as defined in M.S.A. § 169.791. (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-204, 3-19-2018) Sec. 66-274. - Operating conditions. (a) Designated public rights-of-way. Motorized golf carts may be operated on all local city streets within the limits of the city that have a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or less, with the exception of East Main Street, where such operation is prohibited. UTVs may be operated on all local city streets within the limits of the city that have a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less. UTVs may travel on East and West Main Street between Western Street area to 4th Avenue area crossing the intersection at Ferry Street. Also, UTVs may travel on Grant Street and 4Th Avenue. (b) Designated trails. Motorized golf carts only may be operated on designated trails along Green Haven Parkway providing access to the golf course. UTVs may not operate on any trail within the City. (c) Restricted areas. Unless otherwise stated in this section, motorized golf carts may not be operated in the following areas: (1) Within state or county rights-of-way, including grassy boulevard and ditch areas, unless crossing intersecting state/county highways and local streets as authorized by subsection (d) of this section; (2) Local city streets with speed limits greater than 30 miles per hour for golf carts and 35 miles per hour for UTVs; (3) Any area posted that prohibits motorized golf carts or UTVs; (4) On Burlington Northern or Anoka County Railroad rights-of-way; (5) On city sidewalks, bike or pedestrian trails unless authorized by subsection (b) of this section; (6) On public or private property unless permission is posted by the property owner; (7) Within grassy boulevard and/or ditch areas of local city streets; (8) Public parks and open space/natural areas. (d) Crossing intersecting state/county highways and local streets. The operator, under permit, of a motorized golf cart or UTV may cross any state/county highway or local city street intersecting a  designated public right-of-way at a signalized intersection intersecting the designated public right-of- way. (e) Time of operation. Motorized golf carts or UTVs may only be operated on the designated public rights-of-way and trails from sunrise to sunset. Motorized golf carts or UTVs shall not be operated in inclement weather or when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog, or other conditions, or at any time when there is insufficient light to clearly see persons and vehicles on the public right-of-way at a distance of 500 feet. (f) Motorized golf cart safety equipment requirements. All motorized golf carts shall have the following equipment: (1) Motorized golf carts must display a slow-moving vehicle emblem as described in M.S.A. § 169.522 when operated on designated public rights-of-way. (2) Rear view mirror as defined in M.S.A. § 169.70. (g) UTV safety equipment requirements. All UTVs shall have the following equipment: (1) Rear view mirror as defined in M.S.A. § 169.70. (g h) Application of traffic laws. Every person operating a motorized golf cart or UTV under permit on designated public rights-of-way have all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under M.S.A. ch. 169, except when those provisions cannot be reasonably applied. (h i) Parking of motorized golf cart or UTV. Motorized golf carts or UTVs must be parked in designated public parking stalls or areas used by automobiles only. No parking is permitted on public sidewalks, public parks, public boulevard areas or other similar public areas. (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-205, 3-19-2018) Sec. 66-275. - Revocation of permit. A permit may be revoked at any time for violating any provision of this division, after investigation by the police department and final determination by the police chief or his appointee. (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-206, 3-19-2018) Sec. 66-276. - Appeal. Any permit revocation may be appealed to the city council by providing a written request for an appeal within ten business days of the revocation to the city clerk. The revocation will remain in full force and effect until the appeal process has been completed. (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-207, 3-19-2018)  2015 First Avenue, Anoka MN 55303 Phone: (763) 576-2700 Website: www.anokaminnesota.com CITY OF ANOKA, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE ORD-2021-1743 Sec. 66-277. - Exemptions. (a) City operations. The city police and fire department and public services department are authorized to utilize UTVs to carry out their operations and are exempt from all requirements under this article. (b) Golf course operations. Authorized motorized golf carts and UTVs utilized on property associated with Green Haven Golf Course and Event Center are exempt from all requirements under this article. (c) Community or special events. Motorized golf carts or UTVs on public streets during parades and special events by event organizers, and others authorized by the city for such use, are exempt from all requirements under this article. The police chief or his appointee shall determine if an event qualifies for the exemption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, additional conditions and/or restrictions may be imposed upon individuals authorized to use motorized golf carts on city streets under this section. (d) Private property. Motorized golf carts or UTVs utilized on private property, by the property owner or with the property owner's express permission, are exempt from all requirements of this division. (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-208, 3-19-2018) Sec. 66-278. - Violation; penalty. Any person violating the terms of this division may lose his their permit to operate a motorized golf cart or UTV on public rights-of-way in the city and, upon conviction for any such violation, may be found guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in accordance with the penalties established (Ord. No. 2018-1688, § 62-209, 3-19-2018)  COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Christina M. Volkers, City Administrator Date: September 14, 2021 Subject: Communications Consulting SUMMARY The City of Oakdale has a need for communications assistance on a couple of projects, particularly as we are in transition with filling the communications role. The priority need is with our Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) Proposal. We have now received legislative approval and will need to include this financing option on the 2022 general election ballot to seek voter approval. In order to prepare for this, the next step in the process will be to launch a public information campaign to inform community members of the project needs and funding options. We need assistance to help develop talking points, materials, and a strategy for effectively presenting the information. The second need is assistance with crisis communications. The City does not currently have a crisis communications plan. A crisis communications plan is an essential planning tool that would guide and prepare the city for any crisis situation that may arise. While a crisis communications plan is important for setting guidelines, it cannot prepare a City for every crisis situation that may occur. For that reason, it is also prudent to have an established relationship with a firm well versed in crisis communications, to consult with on crisis communication strategy, as needed. Another communications need is development of upcoming staff in Communications. As can be seen on the attached proposal, this firm can provide services to assist in the training and transition. In consideration of these communication-related needs, City Administrator Volkers and former Communications Specialist Alyssa MacLeod met with Paul Omodt, principal of Omodt & Associates Critical Communications to discuss these projects. Omodt & Associates has worked extensively with public sector organizations and has a proven track record of helping them devise successful strategies for project-based and crisis communications. Two other firms were considered as a partner for our communication needs. A summary of those discussions will be presented at this council work session. FINANCIAL IMPACT Omodt and Associates hourly rate for municipal clients is $200 per hour. The L.O.S.T. informational campaign is expected to cost $6.500 per month for the next three months for the scope of services related. The crisis communication plan will be billed at the $200 per hour rate, as will any services utilized for development of communications staff. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City enter into an agreement with Omodt & Associates to develop a public informational campaign for the L.O.S.T proposal, a crisis communications plan, and other communication services, as needed, per the attached proposal. Attachment Proposal from Omodt & Associates  omodt& associates Christina M. Volkers City Administrator City of Oakdale 1584 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale, MN 55128 651-730-2705 Christina.volkers@ci.oakdale.mn.us RE: Authorization and Scope of Work September 9, 2021 Dear Christina, Thanks again for the time this week to discuss the City of Oakdale’s communications needs. I believe we can move quickly into helping you and your team with guidance, strategy, and hands-on preparation of communications. As we discussed, the City has several different communication needs and these can be addressed in different approaches (laid out below). As you know, Omodt & Associates Critical Communications LLC is a full-service communication firm that uses a best-of-breed service model where the best available talent is brought forward to serve the needs of a client; work for these proposed projects will be led by and coordinated by Omodt & Associates principal Paul Omodt. For this project, Paul will be performing all the general communications counsel, strategy, and writing alongside you and your team. Omodt & Associates Critical Communications generally sets budget approaches with clients based on the specific needs of the client. As we discussed, Omodt & Associates provides client services however it works best for the client, be it at an hourly rate, a bid-project arrangement, or a mix of these methods. For most of my municipal clients with a strong internal staff team such as Oakdale, I have found working together to build a communication plan together and then determining who is best positioned to execute each part of the plan works best. This approach is generally done at an hourly rate and I have found it efficient and effective in getting the needed work done. Omodt & Associates hourly rate for municipal clients is $200.00/hour; billing is typically done at the end of each month. Local Option Sales Tax Communication. The City of Oakdale’s upcoming needs for strategic communication around city infrastructure needs should provide a good first project to work on. I have reviewed the City’s recent public perception survey and other materials and believe there are messages that will work for Oakdale residents to move them to positive action. The scope of work for this project would include reviewing applicable background, meeting with City staff as needed to ascertain direct needs and goals, working collaboratively to develop a strategic communication plan, and executing a plan collaboratively with the City’s communication team. More specifically, between mid-September and the following three months, these elements would be prepared:  • A general communication plan and strategy document • Attending meetings with staff and elected officials (as warranted) to develop and discuss plan • Written materials such as fact sheets, Q&A’s, social media posts, city communications and other materials in support of the plan • Press releases, talking points and elements for media relations; media training for appropriate officials as needed • Community engagement work, including preparing presentations/slides, and assistance with meetings Note that until a plan is prepared and agreed to, it is impossible to ascertain all the potential elements that may be needed; however, the plan will be supported by robust communications and a public engagement process as needed. It is estimated this would entail $6,500/month in fees for these three months. Communication Department Development. With the recent departure of the City’s communication specialist, there is an opportunity to build and strengthen the City’s communication structure. I believe providing ongoing counsel and support as the City moves forward can be helpful in ensuring the City has all the tools it needs to position itself effectively for the future. My experience in guiding the development of communication structures over the past several years includes establishing communication functions at several schools and assisting several local municipalities with communication needs. I have served in interim director roles or as a developer of younger staff so that they the tools they need to be successful. As the City moves forward, I believe I can help ensure it has both the structure it needs and that I can help develop the staff as needed. I would propose a monthly fee for this work to be agreed to along with a set of pre-determined hours. Crisis Communication Support. Omodt & Associates currently provides ongoing crisis communication support to several local municipalities and units of government. In these cases, I have helped establish and train on a crisis communication plan and then partnered with staff with the need arises. The goal is to help ensure my clients know how to communicate crisis and that I can help guide them at the right level of time and input needed. For some clients, it means handling all aspects of communication while for others it means helping with strategy and smaller elements such as writing or monitoring. In any case, having a crisis communication response system in place is key to maintaining a City’s reputation. I would propose working with the City to review its plans, develop and/or refine its plans, train on its plans, and then be ready to help if/when needed. A further proposal can be provided after getting more detail as to what the City may need. Please note, in all cases as we work together, any creative or written materials produced by or in collaboration with Omodt & Associates Critical Communications LLC are property of the City of Oakdale and all materials will be considered confidential. You own and maintain the rights of materials produced and Omodt & Associates will not discuss, showcase, advertise or promote the materials produced without your express written consent. If you have questions on this authorization and scope of work, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly at 952-607-9434 or paul@omodtandassociates.com. If this document meets your needs, please (jointly) sign the authorization to proceed below. Best regards, For: Omodt & Associates Critical Communications LLC For: City of Oakdale, MN Paul G. Omodt ABC, APR, Fellow PRSA, MBC, SCMP Christina M. Volkers Owner & Principal City Administrator