03/27/2007 - City Council Public Works CommitteeAGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY
MARCH 27, 2007
5:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOMS 2A & 2B
I. AGENDA ADOPTION
II. REVIEW MARCH 6, 2007 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MEETING NOTES
III. DISCUSS CITY'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
PHILOSOPHY
IV. FOLLOW UP ON U.S. CLIMATE PROTECTION
AGREEMENT
V. BRAINSTORMING: ENERGY AND CONSUMER RESOURCE
PLAN /WIND ENERGY
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MTG
TUESDAY MARCH 27, 2007
EAGAN CITY HALL
CONFERENCE ROOMS 2 A/B
MEETING NOTES
The Public Works Committee of the City Council consisting of Councilmembers Cyndee Fields
and Paul Bakken convened the meeting at 5:00 pm. Also in attendance were City Administrator
Tom Hedges, Assistant to the City Administrator Dianne Miller, Public Works Director Tom
Colbert, Director of Community Development Jon Hohenstein, and City Planner Ridley.
Councilmembers Bakken called the meeting to order and adopted the agenda as presented.
(Councilmember Fields arrived at 5:20 p.m.)
MEETING NOTES-MARCH 6, 2007
Councilmember Bakken reviewed the meeting notes and consented that the notes were accurate
and ready to be sent to the City Council.
BRAINSTORMING: ENERGY AND CONSUMER RESOURCES PLAN / WIND
ENERGY
Councilmember Bakken acknowledged that Xcel Energy is no longer providing subsidies for
wind energy programs since wind energy is now sustainable from a commercial standpoint. He
noted the Minnesota "Winergy" Initiative, which is a clearing house for wind projects, maps, etc.
It was suggested that the City investigate wind energy opportunities for future consideration in
the CIP (e.g. could wind energy be used to generate energy for lift stations, wells, etc). Director
Colbert stated that windmills may not be able to meet the required heavy start up demands of the
3-phase power supply of our pumps. There was inquisitive discussion regarding the possible
potential of selling excess generated power back to the electrical utility as an alternative.
The committee discussed what it would take to collect wind data at certain areas within the City,
which could then be used to determine if there is enough sustained wind speed to use as a
supplemental energy source for the City. The monitor should provide a continuous recording of
wind speed and direction for a sufficient period to evaluate its sustainable potential. It was
suggested that the City water reservoirs be considered for wind speed monitoring locations
(ideally, the committee would like to see monitors on all of the reservoirs, but if the cost is too
high, then at minimum, a monitor should be installed on one reservoir). The committee also
reviewed the current City Code chapter related to wind energy systems.
Public Works Committee Recommendation to the City Council:
Provide an update to the Council at the April 10, 2007 Special City Council meeting along with
any available information regarding the cost and feasibility of installing wind monitors on the
City's reservoirs for a monitoring period of 6-12 months.
Public Works Committee Meeting Notes
March 27, 2007
Page 2
FOLLOW UP ON U.S. CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
The committee concurred that they do not want to proceed ahead with the entire Cool Cities
program. They expressed concern with the program requirement that a City commission would
need to be established to prepare a climate action plan. They did offer their support for the cause,
and recommended that the City sign on to the Climate Protection Agreement. The committee
also reviewed the list of energy saving measures that the City is currently has in place.
Public Works Committee Recommendation to the City Council:
The Committee recommended that Mayor Maguire, at the request of the City Council, sign on to
the U. S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. The committee also recommended that the City
send correspondence to Bruce Goff, who was the resident who requested the City sign on to the
agreement, to inform him of the City's actions regarding the agreement and also to share with
him the energy saving measures that the City currently has in place.
DISCUSS CITY'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY
Community Development Director Hohenstein and City Planner Ridley highlighted the City's
current code enforcement practices, noting that the City's code enforcement philosophy has
historically been complaint-based. They noted that proactive enforcement occurs with respect to
certain types of violations, but that most property violation investigations occur because of
neighbor calls.
The committee and staff discussed the typical complaints that they receive regarding conditions
in residential areas and at local businesses, such as the condition of buildings, disrepair of
parking lots and pot holes often located at the business access points. It was noted that the public
oftentimes does not differentiate between a public road and private parking lot and therefore
expects the City to make repairs. It was noted that the City currently has minimum standards for
initial construction of private drives, sidewalks, parking lots, etc., but the code currently does not
include provisions for enforcement of standards for such surfaces on an ongoing basis.
The committee also discussed their concerns regarding the detrimental effect that a lack of
overall maintenance on residential and business properties can have on both property values as
well as the City's infrastructure systems (e.g. businesses not sweeping their parking lots results
in debris flowing into the City's stormwater system, private fire hydrants not being maintained
and thus not operable for the City's Fire department, or landscaping not being maintained and
thus sightline issues occur when residents try to access public roads). Staff discussed the way in
which the property maintenance (building condition) code has been applied to bring about
corrections of deficiencies in both residential and commercial areas.
The committee discussed how far the City should go in enforcing maintenance of private
property. It was noted that if a more extensive program is implemented, there will be budget
ramifications. There was agreement that the focus of any business code enforcement that is
implemented should be compliance versus punishment. The committee also discussed the issue
Public Works Committee Meeting Notes
March 27, 2007
Page 3
of recreational vehicles, boats, etc. on residential property, and it was the consensus of the
committee not to aggressively take on that issue at this time; rather, to continue the current
complaint based system to address properties that are out of compliance.
Public Works Committee Recommendation/Reguest to be brought back to the Committee:
The Committee asked staff to investigate the following to be brought back for committee
discussion one more time before a recommendation is forwarded to the City Council:
• Investigate feasibility of an expanded property maintenance program that would focus on
maintenance issues that have a direct impact on the City's infrastructure system (i.e.
stormwater, water, streets, etc.)
• Investigate whether the City has statutory authority to enforce against a commercial property
if it is they are out of compliance with surface property standards (entrance aprons, private
drives, potholes in parking area, etc.) and, if the property owner chooses not to correct the
problem, could the City then contract to make the necessary repairs and then bill the business
for the service rendered (using the same system the City currently uses regarding noxious
weeds)?
• Recommendation: Conduct 360 degree assessments in both commercial and residential areas
as a proactive approach for code enforcement and commercial property maintenance
standards.
• Recommendation: The committee recommends that if the City has the authority to make
repairs on business properties, those repairs should be contracted rather than using City FTEs
to make the repairs.
• The committee requested additional information about how neighboring communities are
currently addressing commercial property maintenance.
• The committee asked for staff's opinion on how aggressive the City can/should be when it
comes to property maintenance to make a noticeable difference. What authority does the City
have (i.e. how far can we go?)? What will the cost be to provide the increased service (cost-
benefit analysis)?
• The committee asked for additional information and staffs recommendation on the licensing
of rental properties (frequency of inspections, cost, etc.)
Adjournment
The meting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MTG
TUESDAY MARCH 27, 2007
EAGAN CITY HALL
CONFERENCE ROOMS 2 A/B
MEETING NOTES EXCERPT
DISCUSS CITY'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY
Community Development Director Hohenstein and City Planner Ridley highlighted the City's
current code enforcement practices, noting that the City's code enforcement philosophy has
historically been complaint-based. They noted that proactive enforcement occurs with respect to
certain types of violations, but that most property violation investigations occur because of
neighbor calls.
The committee and staff discussed the typical complaints that they receive regarding conditions
in residential areas and at local businesses, such as the condition of buildings, disrepair of
parking lots and pot holes often located at the business access points. It was noted that the public
oftentimes does not differentiate between a public road and private parking lot and therefore
expects the City to make repairs. It was noted that the City currently has minimum standards for
initial construction of private drives, sidewalks, parking lots, etc., but the code currently does not
include provisions for enforcement of standards for such surfaces on an ongoing basis.
The committee also discussed their concerns regarding the detrimental effect that a lack of
overall maintenance on residential and business properties can have on both property values as
well as the City's infrastructure systems (e.g. businesses not sweeping their parking lots results
in debris flowing into the City's stormwater system, private fire hydrants not being maintained
and thus not operable for the City's Fire department, or landscaping not being maintained and
thus sightline issues occur when residents try to access public roads). Staff discussed the way in
which the property maintenance (building condition) code has been applied to bring about
corrections of deficiencies in both residential and commercial areas.
The committee discussed how far the City should go in enforcing maintenance of private
property. It was noted that if a more extensive program is implemented, there will be budget
ramifications. There was agreement that the focus of any business code enforcement that is
implemented should be compliance versus punishment. The committee also discussed the issue
of recreational vehicles, boats, etc. on residential property, and it was the consensus of the
committee not to aggressively take on that issue at this time; rather, to continue the current
complaint based system to address properties that are out of compliance.
Public Works Committee Recommendation/Request to be brought back to the Committee:
The Committee asked staff to investigate the following to be brought back for committee
discussion one more time before a recommendation is forwarded to the City Council:
Public Works Committee Meeting Notes
March 27, 2007
Page 2
• Investigate feasibility of an expanded property maintenance program that would focus on
maintenance issues that have a direct impact on the City's infrastructure system (i.e.
stormwater, water, streets, etc.)
• Investigate whether the City has statutory authority to enforce against a commercial property
if they are out of compliance with surface property standards (entrance aprons, private drives,
potholes in parking area, etc.) and, if the property owner chooses not to correct the problem,
could the City then contract to make the necessary repairs and then bill the business for the
service rendered (using the same system the City currently uses regarding noxious weeds)?
• Recommendation: Conduct 360 degree assessments in both commercial and residential areas
as a proactive approach for code enforcement and commercial property maintenance
standards.
• Recommendation: The committee recommends that if the City has the authority to make
repairs on business properties, those repairs should be contracted rather than using City FTEs
to make the repairs.
• The committee requested additional information about how neighboring communities are
currently addressing commercial property maintenance.
• The committee asked for staff's opinion on how aggressive the City can/should be when it
comes to property maintenance to make a noticeable difference. What authority does the City
have (i.e. how far can we go?)? What will the cost be to provide the increased service (cost-
benefit analysis)?
• The committee asked for additional information and staffs recommendation on the licensing
of rental properties (frequency of inspections, cost, etc.)
Agenda Information Memo
March 27, 2007 Public Works Committee Meeting
II. REVIEW MARCH 6, 2007 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MEETING NOTES
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
No action is needed. The enclosed meeting notes are for the review of the committee.
FACTS:
• Per the request of the City Council, meetings notes are being taken at each City
Council standing committee meeting in order that the City Council can review staff's
understanding of the discussions and recommendations made at each of the
committee meetings.
• The Committee meeting notes will be forwarded the City Council after the committee
has had the chance to review the notes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Enclosed on pages, through, are the meeting notes from the March 6, 2007
Public Works Committee meeting.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MTG
TUESDAY MARCH 6, 2007
Location: EAGAN CITY HALL
CONFERENCE ROOMS 1 A/B
MEETING NOTES
The Public Works Committee of the City Council consisting of Councilmembers Cyndee
Fields and Paul Bakken convened the meeting at 5:00 pm. Also in attendance were City
Administrator Tom Hedges, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, Director of Community
Development Jon Hohenstein, Police Chief Jim McDonald, and City Engineer Russ
Matthys.
Councilmembers Fields and Bakken called the meeting to order and adopted the agenda
as presented.
120`h St. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH ROSEMOUNT
Director Colbert provided some background history on the City of Rosemount's request
for a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for utility extensions into Rosemount and previous
review comments from the Public Works Committee regarding conditions for further
consideration. Councilmember Fields reiterated her concern for insuring that 120`h St. be
a condition in the JPA and that it must be fulfilled concurrent with any utility extensions.
Also, the JPA should be carefully prepared to provide Eagan review and approval
opportunities of Rosemount development applications to avoid "Broadmore Trail" type
issues. In response to Councilmember Bakken's inquiry about the rates used for utility
service billing to other cities, Director Colbert replied that past JPA's have used Eagan's
rate structure. Both Committee members indicated that the fee should be based on the
higher of the two communities to insure that other cities are not making money reselling
Eagan services.
Public Works Committee Recommendation. Authorize the preparation of a Joint
Powers Agreement with Rosemount for the extension of utilities with a qualifying
criteria of concurrent construction of 120`" Street from Biscayne Ave. to TH 3.
SIGN REGULATIONS ADJACENT TO EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL
Councilmember Fields shared her ride-along experience with the Eagan Police
Department one evening during an Eagan High School home football game and' was
amazed at the number of parking violations on the local side streets despite the presence
of restrictive parking signs. Police Chief McDonald stated that sometimes officers have
issued 200 citations during such events. He provided additional information about the
level of effort they provide informing the school about the on-street parking concerns in
the adjacent residential neighborhood trying to enhance compliance. Councilmember
Fields inquired about the possibility of providing some type of noticeable differentiation
between the current two types of parking restriction signage: "Parking by Permit Only,
Sam-9pm (7days/wk)" vs. "Parking by Permit Only (when school is in session)". City
Engineer Matthys provided information regarding required standards (size, shape, colors)
under the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices for proper enforcement.
Councilmember Bakken inquired about the potential cost to replace one style of the
current restrictive signage. Staff did not have the numbers readily available. Engineer
Matthys noted that a supplemental sign on the same post would not have to comply with
those same wording or color standards and would most likely be less expensive. Director
Colbert suggested that the supplemental sign/plaque be a solid bright orange plate similar
to those that are installed with new Stop Signs when added visibility and attention is
needed.
Public Works Committee Recommendation. Authorize the installation of a
supplemental solid orange plate to all existing restrictive parking signs that state
"Parking by Permit Only, Sam-9pm (7days/wk)" in the Stafford Place
neighborhood.
CAMPAIGN SIGNS
Director Hohenstein overviewed a number of issues that were raised during the most
recent campaign season relative to the City's regulations about placing campaign signs in
the City rights of way. The issues primarily related to setbacks from streets and trails.
The Committee discussed ways of simplifying the code requirements both for campaigns
and for staff enforcing the standards. The Committee also discussed the fact that the
current City Code does not have a separate definition for campaign signs and that
standards are enforced under the definition ofnon-business signs.
Staff also provided an update on the way that communications and enforcement occur
during campaigns and refinements to be considered for future campaign seasons. In
particular, they outlined the possibility of copying a County enforcement practice of
laying signs down in place with compliance information attached to them, rather than
removing the signs on a first offense, and the implementation of direction to treat other
signs similarly in the vicinity of campaign signs about which complaints are received
(360 degrees around a single address complaint or enforcement along a route for amulti-
address complaint). It was acknowledged that refinements of enforcement mechanisms
do not require code changes, but the Committee members provided feedback about the
appropriateness of these approaches to achieve fair enforcement and provide prompt
information to permit campaigns to come into compliance with codes. The Committee
acknowledged that campaign signs may still be removed for repeated violations in the
same location and recommended that the compliance information that would be placed on
non-compliant signs be attached to the sign posts by zip ties so that they can be removed
when the sign is relocated.
Public Works Committee Recommendation: To authorize preparation of
amendments of the City sign code to: 1) To add a definition of campaign signs in
the City Code, 2) To reduce the required setback for campaign signs from 10' to
5' behind the curb on streets where no trail is present, 3) To reduce the required
setback for campaign signs to "behind the trail" on streets where a trail is present.
3
GAS PUMP SIGNAGE
City Planner Ridley discussed past enforcement of business sign standards. Currently
business signs are only permitted on pylons/monuments, on buildings and in windows.
He noted that some businesses, most often gas stations, have also placed signs in other
locations including on gas pumps and on canopy standards. Since these are not permitted
locations for signage under the City Code, staff has enforced their removal in the past.
Ridley indicated that at the time of the creation of the Window Sign Task Force, a
lobbyist for the petroleum industry tried to introduce legislation to prohibit cities from
regulating signs on various product dispensers including gas pumps, ice machines and
pop machines. The bill was tabled in the 2006 Legislative session, but staff wished to
have conversations with the Committee and Council before pursuing enforcement
activities in 2007. Pictures of a number of different pump signage practices (pump
toppers, electronic displays, pump side signs, hose and nozzle signs, paper towel
dispenser signs and placards on canopy standards were discussed).
The Committee and staff discussed the fact that convenience gas stations have an interest
in point of sale advertising at gas pumps to attract customers into their stores, whether
they are paying for gas at the pump or not. It was acknowledged that the current code
does not permit such signs. The Committee members acknowledged that some amount of
signage is probably appropriate on gas pumps, but asked for more information about how
appropriate regulations on the size, location and amount of signage might be structured.
Staff also suggested, and the Committee concurred, that the industry representative(s)
should be consulted on the matter during the Committee discussions.
Public Works Committee Recommendation: To continue discussion of possible
regulations to permit some amount of signage on gas pumps to a future Committee
meeting and direct staff to prepare background on how regulations on the time, place and
manner of such signage might be defined.
U.S. CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
The committee discussed the US Climate Protection Agreement and it was noted by City
Administrator Hedges that the agreement surfaced at a recent listening session, when Mr.
Bruce Goff recommended that the Council consider signing onto the agreement. The
committee recommended that the City complete an inventory of efforts we are currently
doing that would meet the criteria set forth in the Cool Cities program (e.g. Civic Arena
lighting study). The committee also would like to know the position of the NLC and
LMC regarding the agreement. Do they endorse the agreement?
Public Works Committee Recommendation: The committee continued this item to a
future Committee meeting in order that staff can gather the additional information being
requested.
ADJOURNMENT
The meting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Notes prepared by Tom Colbert, Jon Hohenstein & Dianne Miller.
Agenda Information Memo
March 27, 2007 Public Works Committee Meeting
III. DISCUSS CITY'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
1.) Provide direction relative to current property maintenance code standards -residential
and commercial.
2.) Provide direction relative to potential property maintenance code standards -residential
and commercial.
3.) Provide suggestions and expectations regarding the enforcement process.
4.) Provide direction with respect to development information regarding the appropriate level
of resources to implement the recommended changes.
5.) Other
There should also be direction to staff on what to prepare for a subsequent Public Works
Committee meeting and what items should be sent to a City Council Work Shop for further
consideration.
FACTS:
Property maintenance was referred to the Public Works Committee by the City Council;
the Council identified a proactive approach to residential and commercial property
maintenance as one of its goals for 2007-2008.
The Community Development Department has prepared background information to help
the Public Works Committee discuss appropriate standards for private development and
improvements and also strategies to maintain them.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Enclosed on pages ~ through ~ is background information prepared by the
Community Development Department under the direction Director Hohenstein for
consideration by Committee members.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
March 27, 2007
III. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
ISSUE:
As Eagan has evolved from a rural area to a high growth city to a mature community, the need to
not only set appropriate standards for private development and improvements, but to develop
strategies to maintain them, has grown. At their goals retreat, the City Council identified a
proactive approach to residential and commercial property maintenance as one of its goals for
2007-2008 and, presumably, for the future.
BACKGROUND:
The City has addressed the need for private properties to remain compliant with City Code
requirements throughout its history. The basis of such regulations is clearly in the health, safety
and welfare responsibilities of local government, both to insure a clean, well maintained and safe
environment for the property owner and those that visit the property, but also to maintain general
property values in neighborhoods, to encourage investment and reinvestment in peoples homes
and businesses and to continue to attract strong mazkets for Eagan properties. Yet another reason
for the City to be concerned about maintenance standards is that conditions that become
prevalent can be viewed as generally acceptable, which may lead to owners gravitating to the
lowest common denominator.
Finally, there is recognized correlation between the presence of code and property maintenance
violations and other inappropriate behaviors, such as criminal activity, that the City attempts to
prevent and control. While there is a range of legitimate reasons why an owner may not be able
to keep their property in immaculate condition, such as age, illness, financial situation, etc., the
presence of violations can also be an indication of general disregard for societal norms. That is
why code enforcement and law enforcement communicate closely and often work in concert to
address problem properties and owners.
In the past, the City's code enforcement activity has been largely complaint based. While there
may be a variety of minor code violations throughout the City, the strategy that staff has
followed has been to focus on those violations that create sufficient concern for a neighbor or
observer to file a complaint. Complainants identities are required to be kept confidential by the
data practices act, so the risk to neighbors for raising concerns is low. The City also makes use
of the City newsletter, website and direct mailings as means of communicating the community
standards for a variety of property maintenance and zoning issues.
That having been said, there aze situations in which staff is proactive and does not rely on
complaints to initiate code enforcement including obvio
blocking traffic site lines), repeat offenses (recreating a
visibility violations (off-site business signs in rights of way)
us life safety situations (something
non-compliant situation) and high
. As with traffic enforcement, staff
may also be asked to do targeted enforcement of particular types of violations or to address
similar issues in a geographic area or property type, if circumstances warrant it.
'The City has also taken steps to begin to address specific property maintenance concerns in the
past. An outcome of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update (adopted in February 2001) was the
creation of property maintenance standards for the purpose of maintaining the quality and
viability of the City's housing stock. Specifically, requirements were adopted in Chapterl0 of
the City Code and they pertain to maintenance from the home to the property line. This includes
proper maintenance of roofs, doors, windows, frames, cornices, porches, trim, window moldings,
eaves, gutters, downspouts, etc. While the original focus of these changes was to address
housing maintenance, they have been applied to commercial structures as well. It may be
worthwhile to discuss whether there are particular aspects of commercial building maintenance
that have not been covered to date.
It is a logical step to place a priority on the City's philosophy regarding property maintenance
standards at the same time as the City considers its housing and property policies and priorities in
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. The issue encompasses several aspects ranging from the
approach to enforcement, the nature of the property maintenance codes in place, the nature of the
codes that may need to be considered and the commitment of the City to uphold standards if
changes in standards or enforcement philosophy result in pushback from the members of the
public.
Unlike the response to criminal activity or imminent life safety issues in which fines or penalties
are a first line strategy, the general approach to property maintenance and zoning violations in
Eagan and many cities is to take steps to bring about compliance with the standards that were
violated. T'he creation of consequences or pursuing penalties is typically a secondary strategy.
The process for enforcement is identical to that of any code enforcement effort that entails:
• Complaint based; verified by inspection
• First and second notice letters sent for violations
• Citation issued for non-compliance
• Liberal extensions granted if enforcement occurs during winter months
• Use of outside agencies when applicable (i.e. Dakota County Environmental Health; Paint-A-
Thon; First Call For Help; currently looking into use of Sentence to Serve crews)
Code Enforcement works with Building Inspections, the Fire Department and sometimes the
Police Department if Code Enforcement or Building Inspections believe there are relevant Fire
or Police issues present.
The current property maintenance codes deal primarily with buildings, the condition of yards and
the initial establishment of minimum improvements. The first step will be to determine whether
current codes address the standards the Council expects. If not, there will be value in identifying
what additional issues may be addressed and to research the way other communities address
them. The properly maintenance standards adopted after the 1998 update focused primarily on
housing stock, but the Council expressed interest at its retreat in addressing standards for
commercial properties as well. Such standards may relate to buildings and/or to surface issues
such as:
• Parking Lots (structural -potholes, surface deterioration, water quality sweeping, etc)
• Parking Lots (operational -striping, signage, circulation, emergency vehicle access,
etc)
• Sidewalks (structural)
• Perimeter landscaping (safety sight lines, general maintenance, trash cleanup, etc)
• Drainage
• Other?
Finally, while the specifics of enforcement are typically the responsibility of staff, it will be
beneficial for the Committee to discuss the philosophy of enforcement. The discussion may
address questions such as:
• What things should continue to be addressed on a complaint basis?
• What aze the priority issues that should be addressed more proactively?
• Are there elements within the typical enforcement process that require refinement or
modification?
• What are the elements of more proactive enforcement -education, partnering with
outside resources (Sentenced to Service crews), 360 degree azea assessment, regular
rounds, door to door inspections and/or other elements?
• What are the resource and budget ramifications of more proactive enforcement?
• What other aspects of the issue arise out of this discussion?
ATTACHMENTS:
• Section 10.53 Building and structure safety and appearance regulations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS:
1. Provide direction relative to current property maintenance Code standards -residential
and commercial.
2. Provide direction relative to potential property maintenance Code standards -residential
and commercial.
3. Provide suggestions and expectations regazding the enforcement process.
4. Provide direction with respect to developing information regazding the appropriate level
of resources to implement the recommended changes.
5. Other:
§ 10.52 EAGAN CODE
in no event may such mobile home or recreational vehicle be parked within 15 feet of
the improved portion of any roadway. For the purpose of this provision, the term
"setback" means within 15 feet of the improved portion of any roadway.
(Code 1983, § 10.52, eff. 1-1-83)
Cross references-~affic regulations, ch. 8; parking regulations, ch. 9.
Sec. 10.53. Building and structure safety and appearance regulations.
Subd. 1. Buildi~ag and structure appearance and maintenance requirements.
A. Any building or structure other than accessory buildings on farms is a public nuisance
if its exterior does not comply with the following requirements:
1. An owner, lessee, or occupant of property or a dwelling may not allow the
accumulation of dirt or filth on the exterior premises occupied or controlled in a
manner that could create a health hazard to the dwelling occupants or the
general public. All exterior property and premises shall be maintained in a clean,
safe and sanitary condition.
2. No part of any exterior surface shall have deterioration, holes, breaks, gaps, or
loose or rotting siding. All exterior surfaces including, but not limited to, doors,
door and window frames, cornices, porches and trim, shall be maintained in a
good condition. Exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall
be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering
or treatment.
3. Every exterior surface shall be maintained to avoid noticeable deterioration of the
finish. No wall or other exterior surface shall have peeling, cracked, chipped, or
otherwise deteriorated surface finish on more than 20 percent of:
(a) Any one wall or other surface; and
(b) All door and window moldings, eaves, gutters, and similar projections on
any one side or surface.
4. Every window, exterior light fixture, skylight, door and frame shall be kept in
sound condition, good repair, weather tight, and shall be maintained free from
cracks and holes.
All cornices, moldings, decorative features, lintels, sills, bay or dormer windows,
and similar projections shall be kept in good repair and free from cracks and
defects which make them hazardous or unsightly.
6. All siding and masonry joints, including joints between the building envelope and
the perimeter of windows, doors, and skylights, shall be maintained weather
resistant and water tight.
7. Roof structures, including but not limited to: drains, gutters and downspouts,
facia and trim, shall be maintained in good repair. All roof drainage systems shall
be attached securely.
Supp. No. 9 CD10:40
l c~
PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES § 10.53
8. Chimney, antennae, air vents, and other similar projections shall be structurally
sound and in good repair. Such projections shall be attached securely, where
applicable, to an exterior wall or roof.
9. Retaining walls shall be structurally sound and in good repair.
10. All sidewalks, walkways, stairs, driveways, parking spaces and similar areas
shall be kept in sound and good repair and maintained free from hazardous
conditions.
11. All foundation walls shall be maintained so as to prevent the entry of rodents.
12. Every exterior stairway, ramp, deck, porch, balcony, and all appurtenances
attached thereto, shall be kept in sound and good repair, maintained structurally
sound and free of hazardous conditions, anchored and capable of supporting the
imposed loads.
13. Every handrail and guardrail shall be firmly fastened and capable of supporting
normally imposed loads and shall be maintained in sound and good repair and
free from hazardous conditions.
B. Any fence is a public nuisance if it does not comply with the following requirements:
1. The fence shaIl be firmly fastened and anchored in order that it is not leaning or
otherwise in the stage of collapse.
2. The fence shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from deterio-
ration, loose or rotting pieces, or holes, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in
the original design of the fence. The fence shall be free from any defects or
condition which makes the fence hazardous.
3. All exterior wood surfaces of any fence, other than decay resistant woods, shall be
protected from the elements by paint or other protective surface covering or
treatment, which shall be maintained in good repair to provide the intended
protection from the elements.
4. No fence section shall have peeling, cracked, chipped or otherwise deteriorated
surface finish, including but not limited to: paint or other protective covering or
treatment, on more than 20 percent of any one linear ten-foot section of the fence.
For purposes of this section, "fence" means any structure, wall, or gate erected as
a permanent dividing marker, partition, visual or physical barrier, or enclosure,
excluding any permitted temporary fence as regulated in the zoning regulations
of this Code, within a parcel of land regardless if the parcel is platted or
unplatted.
Subd. 2. Exterior property public health ¢nd safety requirements.
A. Any building or structure in the city which is found by an authorized employee or
agent of the city to be dangerous to public safety, health or property by reason of the
following is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and a hazardous structure or
condition:
1. Damage by fire;
Supp. No. 9 CD10:41
Agenda Information Memo
March 27, 2007 Public Works Committee Meeting
IV. FOLLOW UP ON U.S. CLIMATE PROTECTION
AGREEMENT
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
To provide a recommendation to the City Council on whether to sign on to the U.S.
Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.
FACTS:
• IVIr. Bruce Goff recently appeared before the Council at a Listening Session with a
recommendation that the City consider supporting the U.S. Mayor's Climate
Protection Agreement and join in the Cool Cities Program.
• This item was directed to the Public Works Committee for further review and a
recommendation is to be brought back to the City Council. The committee reviewed
the agreement at the March 6 Committee meeting and asked for additional
information about efforts the City has already taken to reduce energy usage. The
committee also asked for information about whether the National League of Cities or
League of Minnesota Cities have endorsed the agreement. The enclosed memo
addresses these requests for information.
• Thus far, the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eden
Prairie, and Rochester have signed on in support of the Climate Protection
Agreement.
• The Committee is asked the review the enclosed information and provide a
recommendation to the City Council as to whether to sign on to the Climate
Protection Agreement and/or pursue the Cool Cities program.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Enclosed on pages ~ through ~ is a memo from Assistant to the City
Administrator Miller that summarizes the energy reducing measures the City is
currently is taking.
• Enclosed on pages ~ through ~ is a copy of the U.S. Mayor's Climate
Protection Agreement being proposed for the Council's consideration.
Ciiy of Evan Tema
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR MILLER
DATE: MARCH 21, 2007
SUBJECT: COOL CITIES-EXAMPLES OF ENERGY SAVING EFFORTS BY
CITY
Per the request of the Public Works Committee at their March 6, 2007 meeting, below are
examples of efforts the City has taken to reduce global warming emissions and/or reduce
energy consumption. These City policies and efforts could serve as examples to meet the
first step in the Cool Cities program, which is to "identify [energy saving] policies that
the City has already adopted".
Examples of Citv Efforts to Reduce Global Warming Emissions and Conserve
Energy
Municipal Center and City Parks
• The campus for the City of Eagan consisting of the City Hall, Police Department,
Civic Arena and Cascade Bay are on a load shed program with Dakota Electric,
meaning that in the case of emergencies, Dakota Electric drops the City off their line
and the City then runs our emergency generator. This arrangement allows the City to
be pay a lower rate for electricity and makes more power available for other
customers.
• Energy saving light fixtures and lamps have been installed in all of the City's newly
constructed buildings as well as the maintenance garage mechanics area. The City is
also installing new energy saving fixtures and lamps in the Parks Department shop
area.
• All of the City's equipment is on a preventative maintenance program. Every three
months all of our equipment is checked and maintained to insure proper and efficient
operation.
• City Hall lobby windows face south as an energy saving technique and to further
reduce additional heating and cooling costs, a tinted window covering has been
installed.
• The City is replacing outdoor fixtures at athletic facilities with more efficient fixtures,
most recently at two hockey rinks and four tennis courts.
~3
COOL CITIES-EXAMPLES OF ENERGY SAVING EFFORTS BY CITY
March 21, 2007
Page 2
• Lights at remote skating sites have been placed on timers which establish windows of
time for their operation (no more daytime turn ons).
• Programmable thermostats are being installed in most park buildings.
• Trees are being added to park sites, both new and replacements to aid in cooling.
• New high efficiency furnaces have been/are being installed in park buildings.
• Mowing lines have been pulled back at some sites, equating to less manicured turf
and fewer mower hours.
• The City is creating unmowed buffer strips around park ponds and lakes, which
reduces machine hours and reduced run-off.
Eagan Community Center:
• Automatic water faucets on all public hand washing sinks.
• Automatic flush devices throughout the building on all toilets and urinals.
• Automatic occupancy sensors throughout the building to turn lights on and off.
• Compact energy efficient florescent bulbs used in many parts of the building.
• Incandescent bulbs have been replaced when applicable in areas of the building.
• Three high energy efficiency condensing boilers are used to heat the building.
• Variable frequency drives are used on many pieces of heating and cooling mechanical
equipment to reduce energy.
• A computerized energy management system is used to schedule the shut down of
various heating and cooling equipment during non-use times.
Civic Arena:
An extensive energy audit was conducted in 2005 and the following recommendations
were implemented in 2006:
• Lighting above the arenas was switched from metal Halite to fluorescent to reduce the
energy use without compromising lighting.
• High efficiency boilers replaced hot water heaters used for domestic water and
making ice, which reduced utility costs.
• Equipment upgraded to use the waste heat from the compressor systems to melt the
ice resurfacing snow and other building heating.
Prior to 2005:
Generator installed to allow the utility company to manage use during peak loads.
Generator covers Cascade Bay, Civic Arena, municipal center building and lift
station. This option allows more controlled used by the utility company and provides
cost savings in utility rates.
Cascade Bay:
• Energy audit similar to the one conducted at the Civic Arena will be done in 2007
with recommendations and implementation plan to reduce energy for that facility.
~}-
COOL CITIES-EXAMPLES OF ENERGY SAVING EFFORTS BY CITY
March 21, 2007
Page 3
Both the National League of Cities (NLC) and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)
were contacted to see if their organizations have an official position on the Cool Cities
Program or Climate Protection Agreement. The LMC does not have an official position
on the agreement and the NLC stated they support the cause of the program, but would
like to see the agreement geared more towards City Councils as a whole as opposed to
only Mayors. Additionally, the NLC suggested that the Cool Cities program does not
require cities to be particularly accountable for their efforts, and therefore, the NLC is
currently preparing a program of their own that will be similar to Cool Cities, but involve
the entire community and require some "check in" points for cities as they prepare their
energy reduction plans. The NLC has added Eagan to their contact list, and once the
program is up and running, the City will be contacted with further information.
As a reminder, should the City consider joining the Cool Cities Program, there are
numerous steps that must be undertaken, including the preparation of a greenhouse gas
emissions inventory, become a member of the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), create a local climate action plan, and form a City
commission to develop the climate action plan. As an alternate to becoming full members
of the Cool Cities program, the City could sign on solely to the U.S. Mayors' Climate
Protection Agreement as a sign of support for the Sierra Club's Cool Cities efforts.
Please let me know if you need any further information about the City's energy saving
efforts or the Cool Cities Program.
/s/ Dianne Miller
Assistant to the City Administrator
1S
ENDORSING THE O.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously
adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities,
communities and the federal government to take actions
to reduce global warming pollution; and
WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the international community's most
respected assemblage of scientists, has found that
climate disruption is a reality and that human
activities are largely responsible for increasing
concentrations of global warming pollution; and
WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate
disruption include average global sea level increases
of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40
percent decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness; and nine
of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the
past decade; and
WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now
predicted by the scientific community will cause
extremely costly disruption of human and natural
systems throughout the world including: increased risk
of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact
with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land,
and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat
waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of
smog; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an
international agreement to address climate disruption,
went into effect in the 141 countries that have
ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now
legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on
average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and
WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than
five percent of the world's population, is responsible
for producing approximately 25 percent of the world's
global warming pollutants; and
WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target
for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1.990
levels by 2012; and
~ i~
WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted
greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate
corporate social responsibility have also publicly
expressed preference for the US to adopt precise and
mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means
by which to remain competitive in the international
marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote
sound investment decisions; and
WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the
United States are adopting emission reduction targets
and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan,
coming from Republican and Democratic governors and
mayors alike; and
WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large
and small, are reducing global warming pollutants
through programs that provide economic and quality of
life benefits such as reduced energy bills, green
space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced
traffic congestion, improved transportation choices,
and economic development and job creation through
energy conservation and new energy technologies; and
WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as
amended at the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors
meeting, reads:
The II.3. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
A. We urge the federal government and state
governments to enact policies and programs to meet
or beat the target of reducing global warming
pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by
2012, including efforts to: reduce the United
States' dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate
the development of. clean, economical energy
resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as
conservation, methane recovery fox energy
generation, waste to energy, wind and solar
energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and
biofuels;
B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan
greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes
1) clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a
~a
/~
flexible, market-based system of tradable
allowances among emitting industries; and
C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol
targets for reducing global warming pollution by
taking actions in our own operations and
communities such as:
1. Inventory global warming emissions in City
operations and in the community, set reduction
targets and create an action plan.
2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce
sprawl, preserve .open space, and create compact,
walkable urban communities;
3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle
trails, commute trip reduction programs,
incentives for car pooling and public transit;
4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy
by, for example, investing in "green tags",
advocating for the development of renewable
energy resources, recovering landfill methane
for energy production, and supporting the use of
waste to energy technology;
5. Make energy efficiency a priority through
building code improvements, retrofitting city
facilities with energy efficient lighting and
urging employees to conserve energy and save
money;
b. Purchase only Energy Star- equipment and
appliances for City use;
7. Practice and promote sustainable building
practices using the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED program or a similar system;
8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of
municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of
vehicles; launch an employee education program
including anti-idling messages; convert diesel
vehicles to bio-diesel;
9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump
efficiency in water and wastewater systems;
recover wastewater treatment methane for energy
production;
l0. Increase recycling rates in City operations and
in the community;
11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree
planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2;
and
1g
12. Help educate the public, schools, other
jurisdictions, professional associations,
business and industry about reducing global
warming pollution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED that The U.S.
Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S.
Conference of Mayors meeting and urges mayors from
around the nation to join this effort.
BE IT FORTHER RESOLVED, The U.S. Conference of Mayors
will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments
for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations
to track progress and implementation of the U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the
73=d annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting.
~q
Agenda Information Memo
March 27, 2007 Public Works Committee Meeting
V. BRAINSTORMING: ENERGY AND CONSUMER RESOURCE
PLAN /WIND ENERGY
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
FACTS:
• At the March 20 City Council meeting, the Council directed the Public Works
Committee to discuss a wind energy funding program that Councilmember Bakken
referenced at the meeting.
• Upon researching the funding program, staff learned that Xcel Energy has a
Renewable Development Fund that in the past has been used to fund wind energy
programs.
• However, in speaking to the director of the Xcel program, staff learned that Xcel is no
longer funding wind energy projects with this fund since, according to Xcel, wind is
now sustainable from a commercial standpoint. The fund paid for wind projects for
the first two years of the program's existence, but it will no longer do so in this
upcoming third year of the development fund program.
• While the specific Xcel program will not be an option for the City to consider, one of
the Council's 2007-2008 Goals is to develop an energy and consumer resource plan
for the City. It is possible that wind energy could be one component of such a plan.
• Should wind energy be further explored, the Committee may also want to dialogue
about how wind generation is currently addressed in the City Code, and how the City
will want to address wind energy from a regulatory standpoint.
• In order to provide further direction to staff, the Committee is asked to discuss their
vision for what an energy and consumer resource plan should entail and if and how
wind energy could be included in such a plan.
ao