Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-23-2020 Council Work Session Packet
Council Work Session Monday, November 23, 2020 5:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 WORK SESSION AGENDA The Orono Council Work Session is open to the public 1.Drug Paraphernalia 2.Utility Rate Study 3.Second Amendment Dedicated City Council Work Session Monday, November 23, 2020 5:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Past Meeting Agendas November 9, 2020 •COVID-19 Update •Update on Text Amendments •Building Inspection Services RFP Discussion October 26, 2020 •2021 CIP Discussion a. Water b. Sewer •2021 Police CIP Discussion •Utility Rate Study October 12, 2020 •2021 CIP Discussion a. Streets b. Stormwater Annual Discussions Timeframe: •Budget: Part of June, All of July, August and October. •City Administrator & Police Chief Update (3 times per year for 15 minutes) 2020 CIP – Page 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Walsh and Orono City Council From: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Subject: Drug Paraphernalia Date: October 26, 2020 Council Member Printup has requested to discuss not allowing hookah and drug paraphernalia sales. This item was last brought up in September of 2014. The attached draft ordinance was generated, but no action was taken by the council. Attached is also the Code section for the City of Moorhead and the legal challenge on that ordinance. Staff is looking for guidance on this request. Exhibit A 178606v1 ORDINANCE NO. _____, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS TO CHAPTER 50 OF THE ORONO CITY CODE REGULATING TOBACCO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. City Code Chapter 50 Section 50-31 is amended as follows: Sec. 50-31. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be given their commonly accepted definitions. Compliance checks means the system the city uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco-related devices are following and complying with the requirements of this article. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as authorized by this article. Compliance checks shall also mean the use of minors who attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by state and federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of government for the purpose of enforcing appropriate federal, state or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco-related devices. E Cigarette means any electronic-smoking device that can be used to deliver nicotine or any other substances to the person inhaling from the device, including but not limited to electronic cigarettes, electronic cigars, electronic pipes or any other similar device. Individually packaged means the practice of selling any tobacco or tobacco product wrapped individually for sale. Individually wrapped tobacco and tobacco products include but are not limited to single cigarette packs, single bags or cans of loose tobacco in any form, and single cans or other packaging of snuff or chewing tobacco. Cartons or other packaging containing more than a single pack or other container shall not be considered individually packaged. Loosies is the common term used to refer to a single or individually packaged cigarette. Minor means any natural person who has not yet reached the age of 18 years. Movable place of business means any form of business operated out of a truck, van, automobile, or other type of vehicle or transportable shelter and not a fixed address storefront or other permanent type of structure authorized for sales transactions. Exhibit B 178606v1 Retail establishment means any place of business where tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco- related devices are available for sale to the general public. Retail establishments shall include but not be limited to grocery stores, convenience stores and restaurants. Sale means any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter or other consideration. Self-service merchandising means open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices in any manner where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's employee. The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product or tobacco-related device between the customer and the licensee or employee. Self-service merchandising shall not include vending machines. Tobacco and tobacco products mean any substance or item containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to cigarettes; cigars; pipe tobacco; snuff; fine cut or other chewing tobacco; cheroots; stogies; perique; granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff flowers; cavendish; shorts; plug and twist tobaccos; dipping tobaccos; refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco leaf prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking. Tobacco-related devices means any tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling papers or other device, including an E Cigarette, intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing, inhalation or smoking of tobacco or tobacco products. Vending machine means any mechanical, electric or electronic, or other type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco-related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens or other form of payment directly into the machine by any person. SECTION 2. City Code Chapter 50 is amended by the addition of a new section as follows: Sec. 50-41. Smoking Prohibited It shall be unlawful for any person to light, burn, smoke, inhale, or exhale tobacco or a tobacco product from a tobacco-related device in any location where smoking is prohibited by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, or for any person to allow the same. SECTION 3. City Code Chapter 50 is amended by the addition of a new section as follows: Sec. 50-74 – Sampling Prohibited. (a)Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Minnesota Statutes, Section 144.417, the operator of any tobacco products shop licensed under this chapter is hereby prohibited from any of the following: (1)Except for a bona fide sale of a smoking device, providing or otherwise making available a smoking device for use by any individual within the indoor area of a shop licensed under this chapter; 178606v1 (2)Permitting any person to light, burn, smoke, inhale, or exhale tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco-related devices within the indoor area of any establishment with a tobacco license under this Chapter. (b)Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Minnesota Statutes, Section 144.417, smoking for the purposes of sampling tobacco and tobacco-related devices is prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to light, burn, smoke, inhale, or exhale tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco-related devices within the indoor area of any establishment with a tobacco license under this Chapter. SECTION 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption and publication according to law. ADOPTED this ____ day of ___________________, 2014 by the Orono City Council. CITY OF ORONO ___________________________ Lili McMillan, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________ Rachel Dodge, City Clerk | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis James Monge User Name: James Monge Date and Time: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 11:34:00 AM CDT Job Number: 91669266 Document (1) 1.Disc & Tape, Inc. v. City of Moorhead, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392 Client/Matter: Orono Search Terms: Disc & Tape, Inc. v. City of Moorhead, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392 Search Type: Natural Language Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Cases -None- Exhibit C James Monge Neutral As of: June 25, 2019 4:34 PM Z Disc & Tape, Inc. v. City of Moorhead United States District Court for the District of Minnesota January 10, 2013, Decided; January 11, 2013, Filed Civil File No. 12-171 (MJD/LIB) Reporter 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392 * DISC & TAPE, INC., d/b/a Discontent; STACEY ANTHONY; RUSSELL STEELE; and JESSICA WOLF, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF MOORHEAD, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, Defendant. Prior History: Disc & Tape, Inc. v. City of Moorhead, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22195 (D. Minn., Feb. 22, 2012) Core Terms Ordinance, drug paraphernalia, pipes, smoking, controlled substance, businesses, enforce an ordinance, objects, tobacco, designed for use, summary judgment, illegal drug, announced, inventory, police officer, modified, Records, arrest Counsel: [*1] Randall D. B. Tigue and Rachel K. Nelson, Randall Tigue Law Office, PA, Counsel for Plaintiffs. James J. Thomson, Mary D. Tietjen, and Peter G. Mikhail, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Counsel for Defendant. Judges: Michael J. Davis, Chief United States District Judge. Opinion by: Michael J. Davis Opinion MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docket No. 30] The Court heard oral argument on November 21, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 1. Origin of the Ordinance Plaintiff Disc & Tape, Inc. formerly operated a store known as "Discontent" in Moorhead, Minnesota. (Tepley Aff. ¶¶ 1-2.) Discontent regularly sold novelties, tobacco, smoking herbs, and smoking paraphernalia. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5.) In early 2011, Defendant City of Moorhead, Minnesota ("the City") began to consider passing a drug paraphernalia ordinance. (Ebinger Aff. ¶ 2.) The ordinance was considered because the City had received information from nearby law enforcement agencies about illegal drug products from Moorhead. (Id.) Moorhead Police Chief David Ebinger decided that the City needed a drug paraphernalia ordinance [*2] to clarify the legality of certain items not covered by Minnesota state law and to create uniformity in the drug paraphernalia laws in the Fargo-Moorhead area. (Id.) On September 21, 2011, the Moorhead Police Department and the Clay County Attorney's Office held a meeting with Moorhead business owners who would likely be impacted by the proposed drug paraphernalia ordinance. (Def. Ex. 1, Sept. 12, 2011 Letters to Businesses; Ebinger Aff. ¶ 3.) Representatives of Discontent attended, along with representatives from other businesses. (Ebinger Aff. ¶ 3.) Ebinger and a representative from the Clay County Attorney's Office explained the proposed ordinance and its possible impact on the businesses in attendance; provided a general idea of the items that the police department thought would be included in the phrase "drug paraphernalia;" and opined on the types of items that Page 2 of 6 James Monge were not included in the ordinance. (Id.) 2. The Language of the Ordinance On November 28, 2011, the Moorhead City Council adopted the Drug Paraphernalia Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2011-11 ("Ordinance"). (Ebinger Aff. ¶ 4; Compl., Ex. A.) The Ordinance became effective on January 11, 2012. (Penas Aff. ¶ 2.) The [*3] Ordinance states: A person may not deliver, possess with intent to deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver, drug paraphernalia, if that person knows or should reasonably know that the drug paraphernalia will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, enhance, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152. Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor. Ordinance § 1.B. The Ordinance defines "drug paraphernalia" as all equipment, products, and materials of any kind, which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, enhancing, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152. Ordinance § 1.C(1). The Ordinance excludes hypodermic needles and syringes from this definition [*4] and then presents a non-exhaustive list of items deemed to be drug paraphernalia: Objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing controlled substances to include but not limited to marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, including: a. Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls. b. Water pipes. c. Carburetion tubes and devices. d. Smoking and carburetion masks. e. Objects, sometimes commonly referred to as roach clips, used to hold burning material, for example, a marijuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand. f. Miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials. g. Chamber pipes. h. Carburetor pipes. i. Electric pipes. j. Air driven pipes. k. Chillums. l. Bongs. m. Ice pipes or chillers. Ordinance § 1.C(c)(11). The Ordinance further sets out "Drug Paraphernalia Guidelines"—factors for determining whether an item is drug paraphernalia, including: (a) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use. (b) Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in [*5] control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any controlled substance. (c) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this ordinance. (d) The proximity of the object to controlled substances. (e) The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object. (f) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of any person in control of the object, to deliver the object to another person whom the owner or person in control of the object knows, or should reasonably know, intends to use the object to facilitate a violation of this ordinance. The innocence of an owner, or of any person in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this ordinance may not prevent a finding that the object is intended or designed for use as drug paraphernalia. (g) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning the object's use. (h) Descriptive materials accompanying the object, which explain or depict the object's use. (i) National and local advertising concerning the object's use. (j) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale. (k) Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier [*6] of like or related items to the community, for example, a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products. (l) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392, *2 Page 3 of 6 James Monge sales of the object or objects to the total sales of the business enterprise. (m) The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community. (n) Expert testimony concerning the object's use. (o) The actual or constructive possession by the owner or by a person in control of the object or the presence in a vehicle or structure where the object is located of written instructions, directions, or recipes to be used, or intended or designed to be used, in manufacturing, producing, processing, preparing, testing, or analyzing a controlled substance. Ordinance § 1.D. 3. Police Visit to Discontent Representatives of the Moorhead Police Department met with all affected businesses regarding the Ordinance on December 20 and 21, 2011. (Ebinger Aff. ¶ 4; Penas Aff. ¶ 5.) On December 21, 2011, Moorhead Police Lieutenant Brad Penas, Detective Bradley Stuvland, and Detective Larson visited Discontent. (Penas Aff. ¶ 6; Stuvland Aff. ¶ 3.) Thomas Tepley, principal of Disc & Tape, which owns Discontent; an attorney; and another Discontent [*7] employee were present during the meeting. (Penas Aff. ¶ 6; Supp. Tepley Aff. ¶ 1.) Tepley had the meeting's conversation recorded and then had the recording transcribed. (Penas Aff. ¶ 6; Supp. Tepley Aff. ¶¶ 3-5; Supp. Tepley Aff., Ex. A, Dec. 20, 2011 Transcript ("Transcript").) Penas also took written notes of the meeting. (Def. Ex. 2, Penas Notes; Penas Aff. ¶ 5.) During the visit, police officers identified the items in Discontent that the officers considered to be drug paraphernalia and therefore prohibited by the Ordinance. Such items included "water bongs," "short metal and glass pipes," "vaporizers," and dugouts. (Transcript 5-7.) The officers also identified items, such as "traditional hookahs," "traditional pipes," "scales," and "grinders," which would not be considered drug paraphernalia under the Ordinance. (Id. 4-7.) The prohibited items constituted a substantial part of Discontent's inventory, perhaps up to 80%. (Penas Aff. ¶ 9.) According to the transcript, the officers stated that "nobody is going to jail over this." (Transcript 1; see also Penas Notes ("We were clear that arrests would not be made and subjects in violation would be tab charged with a court date.").) [*8] Instead, the officers stated that, once the Ordinance went into effect, they would visit the shop and determine if drug paraphernalia was being sold. (Transcript 2.) If the shop was not in compliance with the Ordinance, the officers "would issue citations and . . . have a court date issued then." (Id.) 4. Follow-Up Letter On December 30, 2011, the City sent Tepley a follow-up letter, which stated: As discussed in our meeting, there were several items on display in your business that will constitute a violation of the new ordinance. We would like businesses to come into voluntary compliance when the ordinance takes effect on January 11, 2012. Failure to remove the items we discussed could result in citations and prosecution. (Def. Ex. 3.) Tepley closed Discontent on January 11, 2012. ([Docket No. 5] First Tepley Aff. ¶ 17.) He avers that he will not reopen it unless he receives injunctive relief from this Court. (Id. ¶ 18.) 5. Other Moorhead Businesses Four other Moorhead businesses were affected by the Ordinance: Mother's Records, two Mellow Mood stores, and Pyromaniacs. (Penas Aff. ¶ 10.) Mother's Records remains in business with a modified inventory which complies with the Ordinance. (Id.) [*9] Penas asserts that one of the two Mellow Mood stores is still open, also with a modified inventory that complies with the Ordinance. (Id.) The owners of Mellow Mood voluntarily worked with the police department to modify Mellow Mood's inventory. (Id.) Tepley avers that, in fact, both Mellow Mood stores have now gone out of business. (Tepley Aff. ¶ 8.) Penas avers that Pyromaniacs modified its inventory to be in compliance with the Ordinance, but has temporarily closed its business to remodel to add a hookah lounge. (Penas Aff. ¶ 10.) It has now reopened in Discontent's previous location. (Tepley Aff. ¶ 9.) 6. Current Enforcement of the Ordinance The Moorhead Police Department's official policy is to enforce the Ordinance as it is written. (Ebinger Aff. ¶ 5.) The policy does not include arrest or confiscation of any products. (Id.) The City has not yet taken any 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392, *6 Page 4 of 6 James Monge enforcement action against Plaintiffs. (Penas Aff. ¶ 11.) B. Procedural History On January 23, 2012, Plaintiffs Disc & Tape, Inc. doing business as Discontent, Discontent employee Stacey Anthony, Discontent employee Russell Steele, and Discontent employee Jessica Wolf filed a Complaint against the City in this Court. The Complaint [*10] alleges: Count One: Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count One is based on the allegation that the City's announced enforcement practice is unconstitutionally vague, violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and will subject Plaintiffs to unlawful arrest without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Complaint also alleges Count Two: Violation of City Ordinance. Count Two is based on the allegation that the City's intended enforcement practice of the Ordinance is not supported by the plain language of the Ordinance itself. Specifically, the City asserts a right to arrest Plaintiffs for selling pipes based solely on their physical characteristics, regardless of the intent of the seller or the purchaser. The Complaint further alleges Count Three: Equity and Irreputable Injury, seeking injunctive relief. On January 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. [Docket No. 3] On February 22, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Disc & Tape, Inc. v. City of Moorhead, Minn., Slip Copy, Civil No. 12-171, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22195, 2012 WL 591668 (D. Minn. Feb. 22, 2012). [*11] The Court held that Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim because the United States Supreme Court had upheld a very similar drug paraphernalia statute in Posters 'N' Things; the evidence was that the City intended to enforce the Ordinance as written; there is no requirement of a subjective intent in the definition of drug paraphernalia; and the Ordinance's objective scienter requirement (that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the item would be used with illegal drugs) is constitutional. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22195, [WL] at *3-*6. The Court pointed out that the City would have the burden of proving objective intent if it actually initiated a prosecution. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22195, [WL] at *6. The Court also concluded that Plaintiffs did not face irreparable harm because other businesses had managed to stay in business with a modified inventory. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22195, [WL] at * 7. The City now moves for summary judgment on all claims against it. III. DISCUSSION A. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); [*12] Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no disputed issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Amini v. City of Minneapolis, 643 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). B. Constitutionality of the City's Announced Intended Enforcement Practice The City notes that Plaintiffs do not contend that the Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Rather, Plaintiffs solely claim that "the announced enforcement practice" of Defendant is unconstitutional. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that three Moorhead police officers told Plaintiffs that they would be arrested and prosecuted under the Ordinance based solely on the physical characteristics of some of the items in Discontent, regardless of the intent of the sellers or purchasers. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 28.) 1. Constitutionality of the Ordinance as Written The Ordinance is constitutional [*13] as written, as this Court already explained in its February 2012 Order, based on the Supreme Court opinion in Posters 'N' Things, Ltd. v. United States, upholding a very similar drug paraphernalia statute. 511 U.S. 513, 114 S. Ct. 1747, 128 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1994). Like the statute in 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392, *9 Page 5 of 6 James Monge Posters 'N' Things, the Ordinance contains a list of per se drug paraphernalia, which provides clear guidelines of prohibited conduct. See 511 U.S. at 525-26. The Ordinance also sets forth objective criteria to determine if other objects qualify as drug paraphernalia, which "minimize the possibility of arbitrary enforcement and assist in defining the sphere of prohibited conduct under the statute." Id. at 526. See also Village of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 500-03. Similar to the Ordinance here, the statute in Posters 'N' Things defines drug paraphernalia as "items 'primarily intended . . . for use' with controlled substances and items 'designed for use' with such substances." 511 U.S. at 518. The Court rejects Plaintiffs' claim that their submission of affidavits averring that certain items have been used to smoke legal herbs and tobacco undermines the validity of the Supreme Court's decision in Posters 'N' Things. The new facts submitted [*14] by Plaintiffs do not make the Ordinance any vaguer than the law at issue in Posters 'N' Things. The new facts do not affect the constitutionality of the Ordinance or of the City's announced intention to enforce the Ordinance as written, particularly as to items explicitly listed in the Ordinance, as in this case. Rather, the new facts go to whether the criteria in the Ordinance have, in fact, been met – in other words, whether, if Plaintiffs were prosecuted, they would be found guilty. 2. Defendant's Intended Enforcement Policy The City's announced enforcement policy passes constitutional muster. All of the evidence before the Court supports the City's assertion that it intends to enforce the Ordinance as written. The transcript and officer affidavits support this view. Although the police did tell Plaintiffs that they viewed the pipes at issue to be drug paraphernalia, there is no evidence to contradict the police affidavits that their opinion was based on their experience as officers on drug-related cases and experience with drugs that the pipes fit the objective criteria listed in the Ordinance. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has made clear, it is permissible for the Ordinance to [*15] apply regardless of Plaintiffs' subjective intent as sellers, and, based on an item's objective features, it can be designated as drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the argument that a definition of "drug paraphernalia" must include an analysis of subjective intent. See Posters 'N' Things, 511 U.S. at 518, 526. Under the Constitution and the Ordinance as written, the Moorhead police officers were not required to determine whether Discontent employees specifically intended the items at issue to be used for drug consumption. Rather, the Ordinance requires only that a seller know or reasonably should know of use of the object with illegal drugs. Plaintiffs also argue that the Moorhead police have no foundation to provide expert testimony that the pipes sold by Discontent were designed for use with illegal drugs and are used primarily for this purpose because the police have no documented experience with legal smoking herbs and tobacco. The officers have not opined that the pipes at issue cannot theoretically be used for a lawful use. Rather, the police officers concluded that certain items in Plaintiffs' store met the definition of "drug paraphernalia" based on [*16] their knowledge and experience that the items are designed for use with illegal drugs and are used almost exclusively for that unlawful purpose. The Moorhead police officers have significant experience with drug- related cases. Thus, they are qualified to give an opinion regarding which items meet the definition of "drug paraphernalia" in order to aid them in enforcing the ordinance. 3. Significance of Plaintiffs' Affidavits The affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs in opposition to the City's summary judgment motion contain no disputed facts regarding the City's intended enforcement practice. The affidavits merely assert that Plaintiffs sell a variety of lawful tobacco substances, which are ordinarily and customarily smoked in devices that are defined as drug paraphernalia under the Ordinance (such as small- bowled glass, metal, and water pipes and bongs). The affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs from purported tobacco and herbal smoking experts do not touch on the relevant issue. The affidavits do not contradict the officer affidavits that the objects are commonly used for illegal drugs; they merely provide evidence that the objects also have legal uses. Whether or not some legal herbs and [*17] tobacco may be smoked in the devices at issue could be relevant if there is a prosecution under the Ordinance, to attempt to show, for example, that Plaintiffs should not have reasonably known that the items would be used illegally based on the additional use of the objects for legal smoking. But, at this point, there is no prosecution. Instead, all evidence shows that the City intends to enforce the Ordinance as written. The assertions in Plaintiffs' submitted affidavits do not undermine the 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392, *13 Page 6 of 6 James Monge constitutionality of the Ordinance and the City's announced intention to enforce the Ordinance as written. Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: January 10, 2013 /s/ Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis Chief Judge United States District Court End of Document 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392, *17 TO: Mayor Walsh and Council Members FROM: Maggie Ung, Accountant DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: 2021 Utility Billing and Rates Attachments: 1. 2021 Rate Study Memo 10-26-2020 2.Rate Study As part of the utility fund’s budget process, staff has been looking at the rates that are needed to fund our utility systems. Staff has taken a closer look at the recycling rate in order to analyze what is needed in future years to maintain an operational fund. Staff is recommending the following increases for next year: 10% to Water, 10% to Sewer, 1% to Stormwater, and 8% Recycling. These increases next year allows the City to meet funding goals while keeping rates lower in future years. Recycling As discussed when the recycling RFP was approved in 2020, recycling rates needed a significant (60%) increase this year. Due to decrease in county grants and the uncertain recycling market, 2021 needs to follow with an 8% increase, 2 years of 4% increases and can go as low as 2% in years to follow. TO: Mayor Walsh and Council Members FROM: Maggie Ung, Accountant DATE: October 26, 2020 SUBJECT: 2021 Utility Billing and Rates Attachments: 1.Rate Study As part of the utility fund’s budget process, staff has been looking at the rates that are needed to fund our utility systems. The rates will be explained in the rest of this memo. Rate Study Staff has been working on updating the annual rate study on which to base future utility rates. Some of the challenges that have been encountered include the following: •Higher than normal capital expenditures in the near term due to delayed projects •Relatively low number of water users especially on the North system •Low density of users on the sewer system •A complex sewer collection system with 45 lift stations •High levels of I&I in the sewer system •An increase of road projects impacts utilities in the road corridors Because our water system has a low number of users, the overhead of two water plants, four wells, and two water towers is spread over far fewer customers that some of our neighboring cities. This puts significant pressure on our water rates. With 45 lift stations we have approximately one lift station for every 50 connections. A city like Plymouth, with a higher population density and less geographical challenges, has approximately one lift station for every 5,000 connections. When the complexity of our system is combined with the I&I issues, there is significant upward pressure on sewer rates. The rates being presented are calculated based on the following goals: •Maintain an operating reserve of 25% of operating expenditures – City Policy and Best Practice •Maintain a capital reserve of 25% of capital expenditures – City Policy and Best Practice •Normalize capital expenditures •Normalize revenue to meet expenditures •Capture 100% of Depreciation •Create a stable rate structure that does not require borrowing or Special Assessments Staff is recommending the following increases for next year: 10% to Water, 10% to Sewer, 1% to Stormwater, and 10% Recycling. These increases next year allows the City to meet funding goals while keeping rates lower in future years. Exhibit A Water Rates: The Water Fund has the most significant funding issues. In 2019 and 2020, the water rates were increased by 35% each year. The currently analysis suggests rates should increase from 10% to 15% in 2021. Future increases could be held in the 2% to 3% range. Staff is recommending an updated tier structure be instituted due to switching to monthly billing to round tiers to the nearest hundredth gallons as shown below for residential: The same rounding would be applied to multi-family and commercial tiers. This will not have a significant impact on revenue. Stormwater The Stormwater Fund saw a 90% increase in 2020 in order to meet the requirements needed. This significant rate increase allows future rates to be as low as 1%. Sewer Based on the 2019 rate study, sewer rates were increased 20% in 2020. With updated 2020 year-end cash balance projections, staff is providing 2 two options: a 10% increase in 2021, followed by a 3% increase in future years; the other option would be to increase 15% in 2021 followed by 2% increases in future years. Recycling As discussed when the recycling RFP was approved in 2020, recycling rates needed a significant (60%) increase this year. This is due to an increase from 3.07 per month in 2018 to the new rate of 5.05 per month per household. 2021 needs to follow with a 10% increase and 4% increases thereafter. Cable The Cable Fund is funded through a franchise fee on Cable bills. No rate adjustment is needed. Cable franchises are currently trying to apply the value of the free service provided to municipalities to the amount required under the franchise agreement. If this happens, revenues to the fund would decrease. Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Tier 1 0 - 3,333 0 - 3,300 0 - 5,000 5,000 0 - 2,666 0 - 2,600 Tier 2 3,333 - 8,333 3,300 - 8,300 5,000 - 8,333 5,000 - 8,300 2,666 - 7,333 2,600 - 7,300 Tier 3 8,333 + 8,300 + 8,333 + 8,300 + 7,333 + 7,300 + Chevy Chase AreaNavarre Area Long Lake Area Ba s e Ch a r g e In c r e a s e 2 % o r Fl a t Ba s e Ra t e 5 0 . 0 0 $ Ac ti v e Ra t e In c r e a s e fr o m Pr i o r Ye a r 35 % 10 % 3% 3% 3% 3%3% In f l a t i o n ‐ 5 Yr Fo r e c a s t B u d g e t e d Am t 2. 0 4 % 2. 0 7 % 2. 1 2 % 2. 0 7 % 2.07%2.07% Ti e r 1 to 2 Ra t e In c r e a s e 26 % I n a c t i v e Ti e r 2 to 3 Ra t e In c r e a s e 50 % I n a c t i v e Ba s e d on 20 1 3 ‐20 1 8 Av g Co n s u m p t i o n Ca l c u l a t e d Am o u n t Ca l c u l a t e d Am o u n t Ca l c u l a t e d Am o u n t Ca l c u l a t e d Am o u n t Ca l c u l a t e d Am o u n t Calculated AmountCalculated Amount To t a l Es t i m a t e d Re v e n u e 1, 1 4 4 , 6 2 4 . 4 9 $ 1, 2 0 2 , 9 1 4 . 9 1 $ 1, 2 3 0 , 7 3 0 . 7 4 $ 1, 2 5 9 , 3 8 1 . 0 6 $ 1, 28 8 , 8 9 0 . 8 8 $ 1,319,285.99 $ 1,350,592.96 $ Es t i m a t e d Ca s h Ex p e n s e s 1, 1 5 1 , 7 3 5 . 0 0 1, 3 1 5 , 6 8 0 . 0 0 1, 2 5 8 , 6 4 6 . 6 0 1, 1 8 4 , 6 6 5 . 0 6 1, 0 7 7 , 5 3 6 . 4 6 1,300,805.47 1,345,889.91 Ga i n / (L o s s ) ‐ No n ‐ca s h ba s i s 15 6 , 3 7 4 . 4 9 2 3 3 , 5 1 4 . 9 1 2 3 1 , 5 6 5 . 1 4 2 2 0 , 3 2 9 . 9 9 2 1 6 , 4 5 0 . 4 2 2 2 0 , 3 1 9 . 5 3 2 2 7 , 5 9 8 . 0 5 Ga i n / (L o s s ) ‐ Ca s h ba s i s (7 , 1 1 0 . 5 1 ) ( 1 1 2 , 7 6 5 . 0 9 ) ( 2 7 , 9 1 5 . 8 6 ) 74 , 7 1 5 . 9 9 2 1 1 , 3 5 4 . 4 2 1 8 , 4 8 0 . 5 3 4 , 7 0 3 . 0 5 Be g . Ca s h 21 9 , 4 7 5 . 1 2 Ca s h Ba l a n c e 21 2 , 3 6 4 . 6 1 9 9 , 5 9 9 . 5 2 7 1 , 6 8 3 . 6 6 14 6 , 3 9 9 . 6 5 3 5 7 , 7 5 4 . 0 7 3 7 6 , 2 3 4 . 6 0 3 8 0 , 9 3 7 . 6 6 av e r a g e ca p i t a l ex p e n d i t u r e re q u i r e m e n t s wi t h 3% in f l a t i o n 24 2 , 0 1 4 . 9 8 $ 24 9 , 2 7 5 . 4 3 $ 25 6 , 7 5 3 . 6 9 $ 26 4 , 4 5 6 . 3 0 $ 27 2 , 3 8 9 . 9 9 $ 280,561.69 $ 288,978.54 $ Op e r a t i o n Re s e r v e Go a l 25 % of E xp e n s e s 14 8 , 2 3 7 . 5 0 $ 19 3 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 $ 24 9 , 7 9 1 . 4 0 $ 25 9 , 7 6 2 . 7 7 $ 26 8 , 1 1 0 . 1 1 $ 274,741.62 $ 280,748.73 $ Ca p i t a l Re s e r v e 25 % of ex p e n s e s ‐ $ ‐ $ 25 , 6 7 5 . 3 7 $ 39 , 6 6 8 . 4 5 $ 54 , 4 7 8 . 0 0 $ 70,140.42 $ 72,244.64 $ To t a l Ca s h Re s e r v e Re q u i r e d 14 8 , 2 3 7 . 5 0 1 9 3 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 2 7 5 , 4 6 6 . 7 7 2 9 9 , 4 3 1 . 2 1 3 2 2 , 5 8 8 . 1 1 3 4 4 , 8 8 2 . 0 4 3 5 2 , 9 9 3 . 3 6 Ca s h Ba l a n c e af t e r Ca s h Re s e r v e 64 , 1 2 7 . 1 1 (9 4 , 2 8 0 . 4 8 ) ( 2 0 3 , 7 8 3 . 1 1 ) ( 1 5 3 , 0 3 1 . 5 6 ) 35 , 1 6 5 . 9 6 3 1 , 3 5 2 . 5 6 2 7 , 9 4 4 . 2 9 Fl a t Ra t e $1 6 . 6 7 $1 6 . 6 7 $1 6 . 6 7 $1 6 . 6 7 $1 6 . 6 7 $16.67 $16.67 Ti e r 1 $7 . 0 7 $7 . 7 8 $8 . 0 1 $8 . 2 6 $8 . 5 0 $8.76 $9.02 Ti e r 2 $9 . 9 0 $1 0 . 8 9 $1 1 . 2 1 $1 1 . 5 5 $1 1 . 8 9 $12.25 $12.62 Ti e r 3 $1 4 . 8 5 $1 6 . 3 4 $1 6 . 8 3 $1 7 . 3 3 $1 7 . 8 5 $18.39 $18.942026 20 2 1 ‐ 20 2 6 Wa t e r Fu n d Fo r e c a s t 20 2 4 2025 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 Exhibit B Ra t e In c r e a s e 90 % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Ra t e = $1 5 . 4 2 R a t e = $1 5 . 5 7 R a t e = $1 5 . 7 3 R a t e = $1 5 . 8 8 R a t e = $1 6 . 0 4 R a t e = $16.2 R a t e = $16.36 To t a l To t a l To t a l To t a l To t a l To t a l Total Es t i m a t e d Re v e n u e 67 6 , 7 9 8 . 6 5 68 3 , 5 6 6 . 6 3 69 0 , 4 0 2 . 3 0 69 7 , 3 0 6 . 3 2 70 4 , 2 7 9 . 3 9 711,322.18 718,435.40 Bu d g e t e d Am t 2 . 0 4 % 2. 0 7 % 2. 1 2 % 2. 0 7 % 2. 0 7 % 2.07% 65 1 To t a l Ca s h Ex p e n d i t u r e 81 5 , 1 4 0 . 0 0 91 6 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 71 0 , 0 1 1 . 1 9 77 4 , 3 7 8 . 7 9 89 4 , 0 8 0 . 6 9 665,525.73 918,161.99 Ga i n / (L o s s ) ‐ No n ‐ca s h ba s i s 30 3 , 7 9 8 . 6 5 2 8 0 , 3 6 6 . 6 3 2 7 3 , 7 0 1 . 1 1 2 6 5 , 1 5 5 . 5 3 2 5 8 , 7 0 8 . 7 0 2 5 0 , 1 1 2 . 4 5 2 4 7 , 2 4 4 . 4 1 Ga i n / (L o s s ) ‐ Ca s h ba s i s (1 3 8 , 3 4 1 . 3 5 ) ( 2 3 2 , 7 8 3 . 3 7 ) ( 1 9 , 6 0 8 . 8 9 ) ( 7 7 , 0 7 2 . 4 7 ) ( 1 8 9 , 8 0 1 . 3 0 ) 45,796.45 (199,726.59) Be g Ca s h 1, 1 5 1 , 7 0 0 . 3 8 1 , 0 1 3 , 3 5 9 . 0 3 7 8 0 , 5 7 5 . 6 6 7 6 0 , 9 6 6 . 7 7 6 8 3 , 8 9 4 . 3 1 4 9 4 , 0 9 3 . 0 0 5 3 9 , 8 8 9 . 4 5 Ye a r En d Ca s h Ba l a n c e 1, 0 1 3 , 3 5 9 . 0 3 7 8 0 , 5 7 5 . 6 6 7 6 0 , 9 6 6 . 7 7 6 8 3 , 8 9 4 . 3 1 4 9 4 , 0 9 3 . 0 0 5 3 9 , 8 8 9 . 4 5 3 4 0 , 1 6 2 . 8 6 av e r a g e ca p i t a l ex p e n d i t u r e re q u i r e m e n t s wi t h 3% in f l a t i o n (2 0 1 8 ‐20 3 4 ) 66 8 , 1 0 2 . 2 9 6 8 8 , 1 4 5 . 3 6 7 0 8 , 7 8 9 . 7 2 7 3 0 , 0 5 3 . 4 1 7 5 1 , 9 5 5 . 0 1 7 7 4 , 5 1 3 . 6 6 7 9 7 , 7 4 9 . 0 7 Op e r a t i o n Re s e r v e Go a l 25 % of Ex p e n s e s 93 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 4 , 1 7 5 . 3 0 1 0 8 , 0 3 7 . 7 0 1 1 1 , 3 9 2 . 6 7 1 1 5 , 3 0 2 . 4 3 1 1 7 , 7 9 7 . 7 5 Ca p i t a l Re s e r v e 25 % of ex p e n s e s 0. 0 0 1 7 2 , 0 3 6 . 3 4 1 7 7 , 1 9 7 . 4 3 1 8 2 , 5 1 3 . 3 5 1 8 7 , 9 8 8 . 7 5 1 9 3 , 6 2 8 . 4 2 1 9 9 , 4 3 7 . 2 7 To t a l Ca s h Re s e r v e Re q u i r e d 93 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 2 7 2 , 8 3 6 . 3 4 2 8 1 , 3 7 2 . 7 3 2 9 0 , 5 5 1 . 0 5 2 9 9 , 3 8 1 . 4 3 3 0 8 , 9 3 0 . 8 5 3 1 7 , 2 3 5 . 0 2 Ca s h Ba l a n c e af t e r Ca s h Re s e r v e 92 0 , 1 0 9 . 0 3 5 0 7 , 7 3 9 . 3 2 4 7 9 , 5 9 4 . 0 5 3 9 3 , 3 4 3 . 2 5 1 9 4 , 7 1 1 . 5 8 2 3 0 , 9 5 8 . 6 0 22,927.852026 20 2 1 ‐ 20 2 6 St o r m w a t e r Fu n d Fo r e c a s t 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 20 2 4 2025 Ra t e In c r e a s e 2 0 % 1 0 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % Ra t e By Un i t $6 2 . 7 2 ; Ad d ' l $5 5 . 4 4 $6 8 . 9 9 ; Ad d ' l $6 0 . 9 8 $7 1 . 0 6 ; Ad d ' l $6 2 . 8 1 $7 3 . 1 9 ; Ad d ' l $6 4 . 7 $7 5 . 3 9 ; Ad d ' l $6 6 . 6 4 $7 7 . 6 5 ; Add'l $68.64 $79.98; Add'l $70.7 Ra t e By Fl o w (B a s e & pe r th o u s a n d ) 6. 9 6 7. 6 6 7. 8 9 8. 1 2 8. 3 7 8.62 8.88 R at e A m o u n t R a t e A m o u n t R a t e A m o u n t R a t e A m o u n t R a t e A m o u n t R a t e A m o u n t R a t e A m o u n t To t a l Es t i m a t e d Re v e n u e 1, 9 2 4 , 9 7 7 . 9 6 2, 1 0 8 , 9 5 9 . 8 6 2, 1 6 7 , 8 8 3 . 6 1 2, 2 3 0 , 0 8 0 . 1 0 2, 2 8 8 , 9 0 2 . 4 4 2,357,042.45 2,427,226.65 Bu d g e t e d Am t 2. 0 4 % 2. 0 7 % 2. 1 2 % 2. 0 7 % 2.07%2.07% To t a l Ex pe n d i t u r e ‐ Ca s h Ba s i s 2, 4 7 7 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 2, 4 6 5 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 2, 1 6 1 , 1 1 7 . 8 2 2, 2 6 7 , 8 1 5 . 1 2 2, 6 4 8 , 3 6 7 . 3 7 2,472,949.66 2,347,676.06 Be g . Ca s h 2, 1 9 2 , 7 4 7 . 2 4 Ga i n / (L o s s ) ‐ Ca s h ba s i s (5 5 2 , 6 2 2 . 0 4 ) (3 5 6 , 6 4 0 . 1 4 ) 6, 7 6 5 . 7 9 (3 7 , 7 3 5 . 0 2 ) (3 5 9 , 4 6 4 . 9 2 ) (115,907.21)79,550.59 Es t i m a t e d YE Ca s h Ba l a n c e 1, 6 4 0 , 1 2 5 . 2 0 1, 2 8 3 , 4 8 5 . 0 6 1, 2 9 0 , 2 5 0 . 8 5 1, 2 5 2 , 5 1 5 . 8 3 89 3 , 0 5 0 . 9 1 777,143.70 856,694.29 av e r a g e ca p i t a l ex p e n d i t u r e re q u i r e m e n t s wi t h 3% in f l a t i o n (2 0 1 8 ‐20 3 4 ) 81 6 , 5 7 8 . 8 5 84 1 , 0 7 6 . 2 2 86 6 , 3 0 8 . 5 0 89 2 , 2 9 7 . 7 6 91 9 , 0 6 6 . 6 9 946,638.69 975,037.85 Op e r a t i o n Re s e r v e Go a l 25 % of Ex p e n s e s 44 7 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 47 4 , 9 2 5 . 0 0 48 7 , 8 0 6 . 2 1 49 9 , 3 0 0. 2 8 51 0 , 1 2 7 . 3 4 521,063.66 532,312.77 Ca p i t a l Re s e r v e 25 % of ex p e n s e s 0. 0 0 21 0 , 2 6 9 . 0 5 21 6 , 5 7 7 . 1 3 22 3 , 0 7 4 . 4 4 22 9 , 7 6 6 . 6 7 236,659.67 243,759.46 To t a l Ca s h Re s e r v e Re q u i r e d 44 7 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 68 5 , 1 9 4 . 0 5 70 4 , 3 8 3 . 3 3 72 2 , 3 7 4 . 7 2 73 9 , 8 9 4 . 0 1 757,723.34 776,072.23 Ca s h Ba l a n c e af t e r Ca s h Re s e r v e 1, 1 9 2 , 3 2 5 . 2 0 59 8 , 2 9 1 . 0 0 58 5 , 8 6 7 . 5 2 53 0 , 1 4 1 . 1 1 15 3 , 1 5 6 . 8 9 19,420.36 80,622.062026 20 2 1 ‐ 20 2 6 Se w e r Fu n d Fo r e c a s t 20 2 3 20 2 4 2025 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 0 20 2 1 20 2 2 20 2 3 20 2 4 2025 2026 Ra t e In c r e a s e 60 % 8% 4% 4% 2% 2%2% Ra t e = $5 . 3 3 R a t e = $5 . 7 6 R a t e = $5 . 9 9 R a t e = $6 . 2 3 R a t e = $6 . 3 5 . 0 0 R a t e = $6.48 R a t e = $6.61 Es t i m a t e d Pr o g r a m Re v e n u e 20 5 , 6 3 2 . 0 0 22 2 , 0 8 2 . 5 6 23 0 , 9 6 5 . 8 6 24 0 , 2 0 4 . 5 0 24 5 , 0 0 8 . 5 9 249,908.76 254,906.93 Ot h e r Re v e n u e Co u n t y Gr a n t 5, 0 0 0 . 0 0 5, 0 0 0 . 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Mi s c 10 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 10 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 10 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 10 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 10 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 10,000.00 10,000.00 To t a l Re v e n u e 22 0 , 6 3 2 . 0 0 23 7 , 0 8 2 . 5 6 24 0 , 9 6 5 . 8 6 25 0 , 2 0 4 . 5 0 25 5 , 0 0 8 . 5 9 259,908.76 264,906.93 Co n t r a c t % 4 . 0 % 4 . 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 0 % 4.0%4.0% 60 3 Co n t r a c t e d Re c y c l i n g Se r v i c e 19 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 19 8 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 20 6 , 5 8 5 . 6 0 20 6 , 5 8 5 . 6 0 21 4 , 8 4 9 . 0 2 223,442.98 232,380.70 Ot h e r Ex p e n d i t u r e 25 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 31 , 8 5 0 . 0 0 33 , 1 2 4 . 0 0 33 , 1 2 4 . 0 0 34 , 4 4 8 . 9 6 35,826.92 37,260.00 To t a l Ca s h Ex p e n d i t u r e 21 6 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 23 0 , 4 9 0 . 0 0 23 9 , 7 0 9 . 6 0 23 9 , 7 0 9 . 6 0 24 9 , 2 9 7 . 9 8 259,269.90 269,640.70 Ga i n / (L o s s ) ‐ Ca s h ba s i s 3, 9 3 2 . 0 0 6 , 5 9 2 . 5 6 1 , 2 5 6 . 2 6 1 0 , 4 9 4 . 9 0 5 , 7 1 0 . 6 0 6 3 8 . 8 6 (4,733.77) Be g Ca s h 50 , 9 0 4 . 8 5 54 , 8 3 6 . 8 5 6 1 , 4 2 9 . 4 1 6 2 , 6 8 5 . 6 7 7 3 , 1 8 0 . 5 7 7 8 , 8 9 1 . 1 7 7 9 , 5 3 0 . 0 3 Ye a r En d Ca s h Ba l a n c e 54 , 8 3 6 . 8 5 6 1 , 4 2 9 . 4 1 6 2 , 6 8 5 . 6 7 7 3 , 1 8 0 . 5 7 7 8 , 8 9 1 . 1 7 7 9 , 5 3 0 . 0 3 7 4 , 7 9 6 . 2 6 Op e r a t i o n Re s e r v e Go a l 25 % of Ex p e n s e s 54 , 1 7 5 . 0 0 57 , 6 2 2 . 5 0 59 , 9 2 7 . 4 0 59 , 9 2 7 . 4 0 62 , 3 2 4 . 5 0 64,817.48 67,410.17 Ca s h Ba l a n c e af t e r Ca s h Re s e r v e 66 1 . 8 5 3 , 8 0 6 . 9 1 2 , 7 5 8 . 2 7 1 3 , 2 5 3 . 1 7 1 6 , 5 6 6 . 6 8 1 4 , 7 1 2 . 5 5 7 , 3 8 6 . 0 9 20 2 1 ‐ 20 2 6 Re c y c l i n g Fu n d Fo r e c a s t Mo n t h XY Z Mo n t h XY Z Mo n t h XY Z Mo n t h XYZ Ye a r 20 1 9 Ye a r 20 2 0 Ye a r 20 2 1 Ye a r 2022 Us a g e Us a g e Us a g e Usage WA T E R 5 $ 4 6 . 3 6 W A T E R 5 $ 5 6 . 7 5 W A T E R 5 $ 6 0 . 8 5 W A T E R 5 $ 6 2 . 1 8 SE W E R FL A T 52 . 2 7 $ SE W E R FL A T 62 . 7 2 $ SE W E R FL A T 68 . 9 9 $ SE W E R FLAT 71.06 $ WA T E R TE S T FE E 0. 5 3 $ WA T E R TE S T FE E 0. 8 1 $ WA T E R TE S T FE E 0. 8 1 $ WA T E R TEST FEE 0.81 $ ST O R M WA T E R 8. 1 1 $ ST O R M WA T E R 15 . 4 2 $ ST O R M WA T E R 15 . 5 7 $ ST O R M WATER 15.73 $ RE C Y C L I N G 3. 3 3 $ RE C Y C L I N G 5. 3 3 $ RE C Y C L I N G 5. 7 6 $ RE C Y C L I N G 5.99 $ To t a l Am o u n t Du e 11 0 . 6 0 $ To t a l Am o u n t Du e 14 1 . 0 3 $ To t a l Am o u n t Du e 15 1 . 9 8 $ To t a l Amount Due 155.76 $ In c r e a s e fr o m Pr i o r Ye a r 28 % 8% 2.5% *B a s e d on Mo n t h l y Eq u i v a l e n t Ac t u a l Ra t e s * B a s e d on Ac t u a l Ra t e s Mo n t h XY Z Mo n t h XY Z Mo n t h XY Z Mo n t h XYZ Ye a r 20 2 3 Ye a r 20 2 4 Ye a r 20 2 5 Ye a r 2026 BI L L DE T A I L BI L L DE T A I L Us a g e Us a g e Us a g e Usage WA T E R 5 $ 6 3 . 5 4 W A T E R 5 $ 6 4 . 9 5 W A T E R 5 $ 6 6 . 2 9 W A T E R 5 $ 6 7 . 7 8 SE W E R FL A T 73 . 1 9 $ SE W E R FL A T 75 . 3 9 $ SE W E R FL A T 77 . 6 5 $ SE W E R FLAT 79.98 $ WA T E R TE S T FE E 0. 8 1 $ WA T E R TE S T FE E 0. 8 1 $ WA T E R TE S T FE E 0. 8 1 $ WA T E R TEST FEE 0.81 $ ST O R M WA T E R 15 . 8 8 $ ST O R M WA T E R 16 . 0 4 $ ST O R M WA T E R 16 . 2 0 $ ST O R M WATER 16.36 $ RE C Y C L I N G 6. 2 3 $ RE C Y C L I N G 6. 3 5 $ RE C Y C L I N G 6. 4 8 $ RE C Y C L I N G 6.61 $ To t a l Am o u n t Du e 15 9 . 6 6 $ To t a l Am o u n t Du e 16 3 . 5 4 $ To t a l Am o u n t Du e 16 7 . 4 3 $ To t a l Amount Due 171.54 $ In c r e a s e fr o m Pr i o r Ye a r 2. 5 % 2. 4 % 2. 4 % 2.5% 20 2 1 ‐ 20 2 6 Sa m p l e Bi l l s BI L L DE T A I L BI L L DE T A I L BI L L DE T A I L BI L L DE T A I L BILL DETAIL BILL DETAIL AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: DJR Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1.Purpose: To display the City of Orono’s support for the Second Amendment and to express the upholding of the protection of individual 2nd Amendment Rights. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to Approve or Deny a Resolution Declaring Orono a Second Amendment Dedicated City. Exhibits A.A Resolution Declaring Orono a Second Amendment Dedicated City Item No.: Date: November 23, 2020 Item Description: Second Amendment Dedicated City Presenter: Soren Mattick Agenda Section: Attorney 212664v1 CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 20-_____ A RESOLUTION DECLARING ORONO A SECOND AMENDMENT DEDICATED CITY WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads “A well- regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”; and WHEREAS, the federal and state governments have numerous laws, statutes, and regulations relating to firearms ownership, purchase, transportation, transfer, carry and use; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute §471.633 preempts municipalities from regulating firearms; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to express opposition to any law that would restrict the constitutional rights of the citizens of Orono to keep and bear arms; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to express its deep commitment to the rights of all citizens of Orono to keep and bear arms, except those prohibited by current law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono: 1.City Council hereby expresses its intent to uphold and protect the Second Amendment rights of the residents of Orono; 2.City Council hereby declares Orono as a "Second Amendment Dedicated City”; and 3.City Council hereby declares its intent to oppose, through legal means, any infringement on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. ADOPTED, this _____ day of ____________, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. CITY OF ORONO By Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Exhibit B