City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 9, 2011

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for May: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe).  City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.

2.         Approve Agenda

With consensus, Mayor Roe suggested that Agenda Items 3, 4 and 5 and 6 be moved forward on the agenda prior to the joint meeting with the Planning Commission.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled, “Approve Application for Minnesota Department of commerce Auto Theft Program Grant.”

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.  

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 

 

a.         Ms. Ilona Rouda, 946 Lydia Drive

Ms. Rouda noted the extensive efforts she spends on her property’s landscaping and the frustration with the ever-increasing deer population in their neighborhood and damages to their shrubs and plantings.  Ms. Rouda noted the significant amount of money spent on deterrents, to no avail, and upon her return from spending part of the winter in the south, the amount of damage found from winter feeding by deer in their yard.  Ms. Rouda noted staff’s opinion that an electric fence would not be approved to deter this problem due to the City’s zoning ordinance and safety issues; and asked that the City manage the deer population, estimating that there were approximately 100 deer in the immediate community.

 

          b.         Greg Moder Ms. Rouda’s next door neighbor

Mr. Moder concurred with Ms. Rouda; and opined that the deer population was taking away from their neighborhood’s quality of life; and unless something was done, similar to the work of the City of Little Canada and supporting those efforts, there would be no relief.  While not supporting deer harvesting, Mr. Moder opined that there appeared to be no other solution.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City had been monitoring the deer population; however, it needed to take more proactive action to address this issue.

 

c.         John Chelstrom; 980 Lydia Avenue W

Mr. Chelstrom concurred with the previous speakers and the ongoing deer problem.  Mr. Chelstrom opined that this was not only a nuisance issue, but also a safety hazard with deer crossing the road.  Mr. Chelstrom suggested that the deer appear to traverse through the Little Lake Josephine wetland area to the Lake Owasso area.

 

d.            Pam Jakes 943 Lydia Drive

Ms. Jakes noted that their property wasn’t adjacent to green space or natural habitat areas, but their homes were actually several rows of homes into the more urban area; indicating that the deer were moving further into the neighborhood.  Ms. Jakes expressed concern, in addition to killing the vegetation, the potential of them carrying deer ticks.

 

e.         Don Jakes, 943 Lydia Drive

Mr. Jakes noted the significant increase in deer over the last year; the deer jumping fences to access backyards, and his observation of a half-dozen moving through his yard daily.  Mr. Jakes opined if the herd was this high now, another breeding season could only serve to create more problems.

 

Mayor Roe thanked residents for sending a clear message through their public comment; and asked staff to follow-up; advising that the City Council and/or staff would report back to those speaking.  Mayor Roe and Councilmember Pust noted that they experienced similar problems at their homes.

4.         Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe and Councilmembers announced upcoming meetings/events and how to obtain additional information.  Meetings included:

·         May 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm – Yellow Ribbon Community Organization – kick-off organizational meeting at the Roseville Skating Center for any interested volunteers

·         May 11, 2011 from 7:00 – 8:45 pm - Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation Community Meeting #2 at the Roseville Skating Center Rose Room where preliminary outcomes of the recently-completed Master Plan Implementation Survey will be available; and “next steps” discussed by Implementation Team Work Groups; as well as opportunities to speak with citizen leaders, neighbors, and staff on current parks and recreation needs

·         May 14, 2011 from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm - Pottery in the Garden at the Muriel Sahlin Arboretum

·         May 21, 2011 from 9:00 am to 12:00 Noon – Free shredding day at Roseville City Hall for residents; up to five (5) bankers boxes will be accepted, with all documents shredded on site and then sent to a paper mill for recycling

·         Rosefest Kick-off information and brochures are hot off the press for this annual community celebration from June 25 through July 4, 2011; with multiple events

 

Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus expressed their appreciation of the learning opportunity as they participated and observed the Fire Department hold a controlled burn of a home on County Road B and Chatsworth.   Both Councilmembers noted their favorable impression with the entire operation from administration, training, organization, and the efficiency in the event.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

a.            Proclaim May 15 as National Police Week and May 15 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation designating May 15 as National Police Week and May 15 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day in the City of Roseville, MN.

 

Willmus moved, Pust seconded, proclaiming May 15 as National Police Week and May 15 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day in Roseville, MN.

                       

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.         Proclaim May as Older American’s Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation designating May as Older American’s Month.

 

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, proclaiming May as Older American’s Month in the City of Roseville, MN.

                       

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Vice President Marilyn Hendricks of the North Suburban Area Senior Council, and several other representatives of the Senior Council read a brief statement and were recognized by Mayor Roe and the entire City Council.

6.         Approve Minutes

a.            Approve Minutes of April 25, 2011  Meeting     

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 25, 2011 meeting as presented.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.

                        Nays: None.

                   Abstentions: Pust

                   Motion carried.

 

Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission

Planning Commissioners present included Chair Daniel Boerigter; Vice-Chair John Gisselquist; Commissioner Joe Wozniak; Peter Strohmeier; and Michael Boguszewski

 

Planning Commission Chair Daniel Boerigter sought feedback from the City Council on topics they saw coming before the Commission in 2011/2012, in addition to those already slated: Twin Lakes Regulating Map; additional work on the updated Zoning Code.  Chair Boerigter noted that Councilmembers typically watched the Commission meetings as well as receiving their meeting minutes, so were aware of the activities and discussions at that level. 

 

Councilmember Pust asked that the Planning Commission carefully review the City’s Shoreland Ordinance from a zoning and development perspective as it is updated following Department of Natural Resources (DNR) mandated revisions; and taking into consideration recommendations of the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission.  Specifically, Councilmember Pust noted past issues on Lake Owasso and structures being built too close to the shoreland, with that entire issue not currently addressed well in City Code; needing to be addressed from a land use perspective as well as from an environmental stewardship perspective.

 

Councilmember Willmus requested more timely copies of draft meeting minutes following their meeting, specifically when an issue is coming before the City Council.  While the City Council typically receives excerpts of those meeting minutes as part of staff reports, Councilmember Willmus expressed his preference that a copy of the complete minutes be provided.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that the City’s Communication staff was doing a great job in airing the Planning Commission meetings consistently on Sunday evenings at 8:00 pm; usually prior to upcoming City Council meetings, making it easier to stay aware of land use cases.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted the need for future discussion on buffers between medium and high density residential properties and single-family residential properties; with Mayor Roe noted that the topic was included on the City Council’s work plan.  Mayor Roe noted that it was one of several technical planning/zoning adjustments found needing further revision following the recent Zoning Code adoption.

Councilmember Johnson noted the need to address large and small lots throughout the community as well.

 

Chair Boerigter asked that collectively, or individually, Councilmembers provide the Commission with their goals for establishing buffers, so the Commission is not just relying on staff’s recommendations, if the City Council was looking for greater buffer areas; and if Councilmembers were looking at creating a large lot district.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the issue was not a simple one, with one solution to satisfy the City Council majority and community at large; as experienced over the last few years during numerous discussions.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned how the Commission felt about bringing issues of interest from their group to the City Council, since they represented the citizens rather than serving as a conduit between staff and the City Council; opining that she viewed their roles as representative of the community.  If the Commission had ideas for the process, she expressed her interest in hearing from them; or if there were ideas or issues arising from Commission deliberations that Commissioners thought should be brought forward.   Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal interest in revisiting Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) as a tool for specific applications for land stewardship; as well as an overlay district for large lots.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the Commission was in a good position to initiate some things themselves and bring them forward.

 

Chair Boerigter, based on his experience and involvement as a Planning Commissioner, opined that the Planning Commission role is not to initiate changes to code; and opined that it had never been their job, based on his understanding of the Commission’s charge and direction from the City Council, as well as statutory provisions for a Planning Commission.  Chair Boerigter noted that land use issues and considerations worked their way through staff and the City Council, and were then brought to the attention of the Planning Commission for their debate and recommendation, and an opportunity for public comment.  Chair Boerigter opined that it was not the Commission’s job to amend code or propose amendments; and if the Commission observed any problem areas, they communicated that to the City Council through staff and sought authority and directive to move forward toward finding a solution.  Chair Boerigter noted that the Commission was not charged with engaging the City Attorney to amend code without first having City Council support.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned to whom the Commission made their comments if, during the process, they found the need for corrective action; and how that was communicated to the City Council.

 

Chair Boerigter advised that those deliberations and those actions without consensus were duly reflected in the Commission’s meeting minutes; providing specific points that the Commission, individually or corporately, recommended that the City Council provide additional consideration.  Chair Boerigter advised that, for the most part, the Commission was dealing with specific land use issues from specific applications, not looking for problem areas.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted statutory language compared to the historical operation of the Planning Commission in Roseville; and expressed her interest in having the Commission take a broader role as a conduit between citizens and the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe noted that that broader role already took place, as alluded to by Chair Boerigter, when the Commission had been well discussed at the Planning Commission level and their individual points of view and corporate recommendation on an application were forwarded to the City Council; with the Commission recommending an additional or future action.  Mayor Roe opined that it made sense from the Planning Commission’s point of view, not to spend considerable time on things that may not proceed; without having come before the City Council first.

 

Councilmember Johnson thanked Commissioners Boerigter, Gisselquist, and Wozniak for their extensive work on the zoning code rewrite and the time required for those full and long agenda; and welcomed newly-appointed Commissioners Peter Strohmeier and Michael Boguszewski.  Councilmember Johnson noted his additional learning curve on some things that the Commission had worked on conceptually, such as urban development for pedestrian friendly environments; and suggested individual Councilmembers seek additional learning opportunities on the purpose and intent of that type of urban development trend.

 

Commissioner Gisselquist noted the spirited debates held at the Planning Commission level on building and parking lot proximity to sidewalks, garages, and garage doors.  Commissioner Gisselquist noted that those zoning code amendments and pedestrian friendly efforts had actually originated in the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process, but had provided some contentious debates on new urbanism development.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted the urban development model as part of the Twin Lakes regulating map.

 

Commissioner Gisselquist advised that the Commission had held that initial discussion at their most recent meeting, and the concerns that needed to be addressed for building locations and their relationship to streets and functionality in comparison to the remainder of Roseville with wider streets; and how to realistically implement that urban design concept. 

 

Chair Boerigter noted that the last Commission meeting was used for presentation of the Twin Lakes regulating map, providing an educational overview on regulating maps and concepts of what the area might look like; but that no details had been developed yet.  Chair Boerigter noted the upcoming public open house on May 25, 2011, to receive public input on Twin Lakes regulating map; following which the Commission would hold a special meeting in June with a Public Hearing to hear additional public comment; followed by recommendation to the City Council the end of June, not allowing much time to ensure that the regulating map fits with the Twin Lakes vision, given that not everyone seems to agree on what that vision is, based on various processes over a number of years.  Chair Boerigter expressed his concern that by the time the regulating map was presented to the City Council, it may be found not to be the vision of the City Council; and require more in-depth discussions on the Twin Lakes redevelopment area.

 

Councilmember Johnson encouraged individual Commissioners to reiterate, at the time of their voting on recommendations to the City Council, their rationale in voting an issue up or down; allowing the City Council to review those meeting minutes and discern their intent and any reservations.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in hearing comments from the Commission, such as this one, whether a process is too accelerated to allow sufficient public comment and consideration prior to the item being recommended to the City Council.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that it was reasonable if the Commission wanted to continue a public hearing to the next month, and opined that it should present no problem from the City Council’s perspective.  Related to the Twin Lakes regulating map, Mayor Roe noted that the City Council recognized its purpose to establish how uses related to each other and the street, and not to provide a 3-D model of how Twin Lakes will look.

 

Councilmember Pust suggested that individual Commissioners share their views on what Twin Lakes should look like; and when prompted by Chair Boerigter that individual Councilmembers share their views first; declined.

 

Commissioner Gisselquist noted that the Twin Lakes redevelopment area had been designated as Community Mixed Use, suggesting businesses below and residential units above in some of those instances; but that it was not meant to be destination retail such as a mini-Rosedale.  Personally, Commissioner Gisselquist opined that it may actually make a good place for retail; while recognizing the controversial nature of such an opinion; he saw the area moving more toward a medium retail area with some residential mixes.

 

Chair Boerigter shared his personal vision, and based on what had happened with various proposals over the last few years; opining that the area would encompass more office use than retail; with retail limited and tied to residential in that area, as well as commercial/office uses.  When considering traditional mixed uses, Chair Boerigter opined that it was thought of in terms of retail on the first floor, and office or residential above, similar to the developments at Snelling and Larpenteur or Rice Street in Little Canada.  Chair Boerigter saw those uses as much more limited, since the area won’t have those types of mixed use buildings, and therefore shouldn’t be the City’s vision.  Chair Boerigter didn’t anticipate significant residential uses either, but more commercial/office uses; and from his perspective, suggested that those uses were consistent with citizen preferences expressed for high quality jobs in nicely developed uses mixed in with a little residential and a little retail; not developing similarly to Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove, or Excelsior and Grand in St. Louis Park with retail and mixes uses.  Chair Boerigter suggested more building types similar to those located across Cleveland Avenue, moving those jobs over to the Twin Lakes development, with some residential and limited retail.  Chair Boerigter opined that it wouldn’t be another Rosedale; and that citizens had already expressed their lack of interest in a Costco, and would probably feel similarly about a Walmart.  However, if only residential was sought, Chair Boerigter didn’t see that happening either.  Chair Boerigter opined that, if the City wanted mixed use that was efficient and desirable for the market as well rather than the mixed use that was in vogue several years ago, it would be more concentrated with commercial/office, and minimal residential and retail.

 

Commissioner Wozniak concurred with Chair Boerigter, opining that he didn’t see much of a retail role in Twin Lakes, or see it as a Grand Avenue scenario.  Commissioner Wozniak noted that he continued to support the Complete Streets concept moving forward; and saw the area mainly as an office park with some medium and high density housing, with both of those combinations working well together; and making an excellent bridge toward Langton Lake and the entire park concept.  Commission Wozniak supported developing the park and trail connections to facilitate a green working environment.  Commissioner Wozniak opined that retail would continue to e focused around the Rosedale area; however, he noted that there were many unknowns, particularly if the Vikings Stadium were to locate in Arden Hills, affecting many regional communities.

 

Commissioner Strohmeier concurred with Chair Boerigter; and expressed his preference for a balance, not all retail.  However, Commissioner Strohmeier noted the need for the open house and presentation of the proposed regulating map; and balancing where the office space made sense, as well as where residential was indicated; and connecting it all to parks and trails.

 

Commissioner Boguszewski attempted to summarize discussions to-date; opining that it appeared that the Commission should look at the Twin Lakes area from what was desired versus what was achievable; with destination retail not a preferred option.  Commissioner Boguszewski concurred with Chair Boerigter , that the logistics were not available to support a huge retail location for a mall mass, but rather housing stock or apartments.  Commissioner Boguszewski suggested that, based on the projected demographics and growth of Roseville, that the free market had a say in this; however, he noted that the unfortunate reality was that the highways and road access may dictate what happens; and further noted that if residential were a strong option, it would have happened already.  Commissioner Boguszewski opined that the most achievable and successful use would be for corporate use, with some medium density high-rise residential to facilitate the City’s aging population, not growing population; and opined that mass retail made little sense; and that such a development scenario was very different than the modern urbanism that had been talked about to-date.

 

Councilmember Pust concurred with Chair Boerigter on his perceptions related to mixes uses such as Excelsior and Grand or Arbor Lakes; and suggested that if that was what the new urban design was trying to accomplish, those efforts needed to be re-evaluated, as it was last year’s news.  Councilmember Pust opined that single-family homes would not spring up in Twin Lakes, but that additional multi-family housing was needed; and would be suitable there.  However, Councilmember Pust opined that it was critical that the City Council and Roseville residents realize that the free market had the whole role in the Twin Lakes area, since the City did not own the property.  Councilmember Pust noted that the community could talk about what they wanted to try to influence in the area; however, there were private pieces of property and the individual applications brought forward would need to be considered on their own merits, not being designed by or for the City.  Personally, Councilmember Pust supported a Trader Joe’s store in the Twin Lakes area if she were doing the design; opining that it was appropriately scaled for such a neighborhood, and with new multi-family housing stock, it would be a good fit.

 

Commissioner Boguszewski noted that Trader Joe’s did market to multi-family housing demographics; and noted the attractiveness of existing commercial/office uses relocating to Twin Lakes to provide a greener environment for their staff.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with Commissioner Gisselquist’s comments; and reiterated cautions that the City did not control the property, and the market would drive development.  Councilmember Willmus also cautioned that, if the regulating map was overly restrictive and hindered a particular segment of the market that was recovering earlier than other segments, such as retail versus office, it could seriously impede development.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the City had been awaiting development for the Twin Lakes area since the late 1980’s and opined that the more the City became involved or the more cautious about its regulating map, the more difficult it would be to attract reliable developers.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his personal interest in    office development; however, he was unsure of the current market for that type of development; and opined that the retail sector may recover faster than the office sector, noting the considerable vacant office space currently available in the metropolitan area.  Councilmember Willmus expressed his appreciation of the Commissioners, their comments, and the lively discussions held at their meetings.

 

Mayor Roe, in expressing his personal vision for the Twin Lakes area, advised that he didn’t envision mixed use to be vertical; but thought more of a mixture of uses spread throughout it, with the purpose of the regulating map not to define use, but space those uses and their relationship t the streets, pathways and park systems.  Mayor Roe encouraged the discussion remain focused in those terms, to provide a flexible framework to provide the best opportunities possible to allow development to happen in the current economic times.  Mayor Roe opined that the development would happen in a piecemeal way; but as long as the regulating map provided a broad vision and definition or how it related to the rest of the community; the City could prove itself a good steward and make it a successful development.

 

 

 

Chair Boerigter clarified that he was not suggesting that staff was leaning toward a restrictive regulating map, since it had yet to be presented; noting his concern was specific criteria for new urbanism design fit the potential uses; opining that if the regulating map prevented certain designs, would it hinder the market from moving forward. 

 

Mayor Roe concurred with Chair Boerigter that attention needed to be given to that valid concern.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Chair Boerigter; but disagreed with the City Council majority when stating that the City didn’t own the land; and clarified that the City did control the zoning.  While Councilmember McGehee recognized that past Council majorities had arbitrarily decided on mixed use designation for the Twin Lakes are; her interpretation of its definition in the new zoning code had a potential to be in conflict and not fit.  Councilmember McGehee opined that retail jobs are not good jobs and that retail was an expensive thing to host; and recognized that Roseville already hosted more retail than any other city in the State of MN; and noted the lack of willingness by Rosedale in sharing the costs, such as for additional police patrols.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City needed to be aware of its tax base and consider living wage jobs, not retail jobs.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the residents had supported and deserved parks and other amenities, and unless the City was to raise taxes, it needed to position itself moving into the future to consider the tax base and how to increase it with infill development that would facilitate budgetary needs, not through parking lots and lower paying jobs.  Councilmember McGehee opined that high-end housing should occur in Twin Lakes, such as on the Meritex property, with development and connection of parks, pathways, and walkways through existing businesses, and taking advantage of Langton Lake.  Councilmember McGehee opined that additional multi-family housing was not needed right now, but more townhomes and condominiums.  Councilmember McGehee suggested creation of an Economic Development Commission in addition to the Planning Commission to evaluate development proposals and whether those proposals met needs currently unmet in the community and serving to significantly increase the city’s tax capacity.

 

Commissioner Boguszewski suggested, given the varying opinions of individual Councilmembers, that the regulating map needed to be flexible enough to move in multiple directions as the market directed; and multiple uses on that broad site be compatible with common themes in order to work together.

 

Councilmember Johnson suggested that there had been substantial progress made, under the guidance of the City Council and administration of Community Development Director Trudgeon, in developing the Twin Lakes infrastructure and in cleaning up contamination to make the area ready for development.  Councilmember Johnson noted that, in moving forward, the City Council needed to be good steward of the properties undergoing changes, but driven by the free market.  Councilmember Johnson personally supported more technology and bioscience businesses in that area; noting that those companies were growing and at a place where they could acquire land and construct new facilities. 

 

Councilmember Pust observed that they would also need a Trader Joe’s.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested that individual Planning Commissioners feel free to contact individual Councilmembers as they felt lead to do so, and if they felt passionate about a particular issue; but not included in the meeting minutes.

 

Mayor Roe advised that, if there were obvious issues coming forward and the Commissioners sought guidance from the City Council, they bring forward a motion for City Council review; and as a body the City Council could provide direction, rather than as individual action, noting that both bodies worked on majority rule votes.  Mayor Roe noted, as Councilmember Johnson reminded him, of the City Council work plan that made sense to forward to the Planning Commission once it was finalized.  Mayor Roe noted that one of the items included on that work plan was the recent issue of pawn shops and similar uses that needed to receive further consideration from a zoning as well as licensing point.

 

Councilmember Johnson also noted the work plan also included the issue of how to determine circumstances for larger notice areas and what triggered larger notice areas, using consistent criteria; and expressed his interest in receiving the Commission’s input on both of those items.

 

Mayor Roe and City Councilmembers thanked Commissioners for their attendance at tonight’s meeting and their comments; as well as for their ongoing work.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

                       

a.         Approve Payments

Mayor Roe noted several items listed as “fraudulent purchases,” and as confirmed by City Manager Malinen, advised that those items would be reimbursed at a later date.

 

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.

ACH Payments	$187,074.01
62770 – 62430	615,709.28
Total	$802,783.29

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

a.            Set Public Hearing to Consider Outback Steakhouse of Florida’s Application for On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License Transfer

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, scheduling a Public Hearing on May 23, 2011, for On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License for Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, d/b/a Outback Steakhouse.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Adopt Resolution of Support for Transportation Funding as Requested by the Regional Council of Mayors

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No.10896 (Attachment A) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Request by the Regional Council of Mayors for Transportation Funding;” requesting the Legislature to keep transportation funding a high priority, especially for public transportation modes.

 

            Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $5,000

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:

Department	Vendor	Item/Description	Amount
IT	CDWG	Replace Network Switches	$10,443.96

                        

 

 

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.            Approve Application for Minnesota Department of Commerce Auto Theft Program Grant (former Consent Item 7.c)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 9, 2011; requesting proceeding with the application at this time, with no matching funds needed if the grant is awarded.

Councilmember McGehee questioned if this device had been tried elsewhere; and questioned the benefit of scanning license plates of parked cars.

 

City Manager Malinen clarified that the device scanned moving or stationary vehicles.

 

Councilmember McGehee further questioned the amount of staff time required to complete the application for this grant; whether the grant funds covered the full cost of the equipment, its installation and maintenance, or actual costs from start to finish.

 

City Manager Malinen advised that Police Chief Mathwig was not available at tonight’s meeting to provide additional detail; however, if the City Council was not prepared to take action tonight, he suggested deferring action until a later date when additional detail was available. 

 

Councilmember Pust suggested, if action were deferred, for additional information related to probable cause in scanning license plates to avoid perceptions of profiling.

 

City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that, in his experience, the device performed something already being done manually by officers, but the equipment automatically read the plate; and in terms of profiling, the device appeared to simply duplicate what was already being done for routine registration stops, by running a registration check on a publically-displayed license plate.

Mayor Roe noted a recent presentation he had heard by Police Chief Mathwig and the City of Maplewood Police Chief; and suggested if so desired, that relevant information could be obtained from the City of Maplewood’s department, since they’ve already deployed the equipment.

 

Councilmember Johnson noted that the City of Roseville had chosen to have a single versus dual officer mode in squads; making this a safer option than an officer stopping to use a computer to run a registration.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorization to the Police Department to apply for funding through the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Insurance Fraud Prevention, to purchase an automatic license plat reader system, at a cost of approximately $25,000, to deploy in its unmarked traffic squad in its ongoing efforts to reduce auto theft and thefts from autos in the City of Roseville.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that, if the grant was awarded, the additional information as discussed should come forward with that action request to accept the funds.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

9.         General Ordinances for Adoption

10.      Presentations

11.      Public Hearings

a.            Conduct a Public Hearing regarding the Vacation of the Public Highway Easement that covers the small triangle directly north and adjacent to Sienna Green

City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief review of the request as detailed in the RCA dated May 9, 2011; noting that the highway easement dated back to 1942; and that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) interest was no longer needed.  Mr. Paschke advised that MnDOT had conveyed their interest in the property to the City of Roseville; and that the City was vacating their interest in the easement.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the easement was only a portion of the triangle portion shown on the displayed map with a portion remaining as part of the frontage road.

 

Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the vacation of the Public Highway Easement that covers the small triangle directly north and adjacent to Sienna Green

 

Public Comment

                   Charles Kelly, 1620 West Highway 36, lives next door to this property

Mr. Kelly provided several photos indicating removal of a hedgerow of trees separating Sienna Green from Rosewood Village property as part of the construction project to-date.  In further investigation, Mr. Kelly noted that the trees were apparently removed in error; and while his concerns were not specifically related to this particular property currently under discussion, he expressed concern that another grove of trees would be removed to facilitate construction for Sienna Green.  Mr. Kelly expressed his anger that the trees, of significant size, had been removed from the property, combined with the cumulative loss of green space with additional construction.  Mr. Kelly expressed further concern that the property had inadequate on-site parking, requiring parking on both sides of the frontage road, creating problematic site lines and narrow streets for other residents in the area, specifically those in Rosewood Village.  Mr. Kelly expressed concern that this may be his last opportunity to ensure that his neighborhood was more functional; and asked that the City not grant the easement vacation.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if other owners shared similar concerns to those of Mr. Kelly.

 

Mr. Kelly was unsure of similar concerns; and recognized that the development was a significant improvement from the former Har Mar Apartments; but reiterated his concern about the tree removal.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if Mr. Kelly had addressed his concerns to Sienna Green management.

Mr. Kelly advised that Sienna Green representatives used the excuse that the trees were removed in error; and he was unaware of their intent to remove them until they came down.  Mr. Kelly noted that some smaller trees had been  planted to replace the larger trees.

 

Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.

 

Mayor Roe noted that there were several actions related to Sienna Green on tonight’s meeting agenda.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned, and Mr. Paschke clarified, that there were forty-eight (48) underground parking spaces proposed in the next phase of the project.

 

James Lenhoff, AEON Representative

Mr. Lenhoff advised that the trees on Phase I of the project had been removed in error by their general contractor; but AEON had since worked with the Rosewood Village Association Board for a mutually-agreed upon and beneficial landscaping plan; with some plantings already initiated and more to be done once Phase II of the project is completed.  Mr. Lenhoff noted that the trees removed were Cottonwood trees; and that an additional 25-30 trees of various species were proposed to be added to that site.  Mr. Lenhoff noted that the trees on the triangle and south of it that were proposed to be removed were also Cottonwood; and advised that AEON representatives were working more closely with the contractor to ensure only those trees proposed for removal were removed and the others would remain.

 

Related to parking, Mr. Lenhoff advised that fifty (50) new spaces were proposed with Phase II for additional parking options; and recognized that some residents did park on the street, which was permitted on both sides of the street at this time.  Mr. Lenhoff referenced a parking study done with Phase I; noting that a number of residents didn’t have vehicles, but anticipated more vehicles needing parking with Phase II.  As part of past PUD negotiations and approvals, Mr. Lenhoff noted that AEON had provided proof of parking for an additional seventeen (17) spaces if a need was indicated.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned the location of that parking.

 

Mr. Lenhoff advised that five (5) would be underground; and the remainder directly at the 2225 building on the far side of the property; away from Rosewood Village and near the stormwater management area.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if green space had been enhanced to replace removals; with Mr. Lenhoff advising that some green space was still within the triangle and immediately south of the proposed building for a “tot lot;” and including green space and some plantings, similar to how it looked prior to their acquisition of the triangle property.

 

Councilmember Johnson questioned the species of trees proposed for removal from the triangle property; with Mr. Lenhoff advising that most were Cottonwoods; and there were some Ash trees that were proposed to remain on site.  Councilmember Johnson noted that AEON may be doing the City and neighborhood a service by removing the Cottonwood trees.

 

Mr. Lenhoff advised that they did not intend to replace any trees with Cottonwood trees, but were using the City’s regulations and Tree Preservation policy and planting a variety.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that only female Cottonwood trees posed a problem; and spoke in support of increasing green space.

 

Mayor Roe noted that any changes related to increased green space would fall under the PUD discussion.

 

Mr. Lenhoff advised that he would have to calculate actual percentage of green space on the site compared to the original development; however, he estimated that there was definitely more green space with the new development than with the previous asphalt/gravel parking areas.

12.      Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.    Consider a Resolution Approving the Vacation of the Public Highway Easement that covers the small triangle directly north and adjacent to Sienna Green

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10897 (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution Vacating a Portion of a Public Highway Easement.”

 

Councilmember McGehee proposed a friendly amendment that additional trees remain and revising the building’s footprint to not extend as far into the triangle as currently proposed.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that this was only an action to vacate the easement and a friendly amendment as proposed was not applicable.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that such an amendment would be an improper condition of an easement; and clarified that the project had already been approved through a PUD amendment; and any additional conditions would require reopening the PUD.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

b.    Consider Appointment to Grass Lakes Water Management Organization Board

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, appointment of  Steve Barrett to fill the vacancy on the GLWMO Board for the remainder of a three-year term to expire on December 31, 2012.

 

Councilmember McGehee moved a substitute motion to appoint Rebecca Galkiewicz to the Board.

 

Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Abstention: Pust.

Motion carried.

 

Councilmember Johnson thanked all applicants to the vacancy.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned why this appointment process was different than other processes with individual Councilmember rankings; opining that it appeared that there was some discussion prior to the meeting by some Councilmembers on the appointment.

 

Mayor Roe recognized Councilmember McGehee’s point; and offered his assurance that he would work harder in the future to provide consistency.

 

c.    Consider Meritex Preliminary/Final Plat at 2280 Walnut Street and Request by AirGas North Central for Conditional Use for Outdoor Storage of Bulk Gas Cylinders

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed request as detailed in the RCA dated May 9, 2011; and unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission at their April 2011 meeting.

 

Plat Questions

Discussion included private versus public stormwater easements for ponds at the request of the City to avoid future maintenance costs; resolution of fencing materials for an eight foot (8’) chain link fence with special slats to make it 100% opaque and therefore meeting City Code.

 

Conditional Use related to Outdoor Storage

Discussion included types of gases stored and distributed, with most used for medical uses; general conditions applied and detailed in the staff report for the outdoor storage of those cylinders; and how to monitor and restrict types of gases stored in Roseville to avoid any gases such as ammonia being stored on site.

 

Applicant Representative, Mike Cavalier, VP of Operations

Mr. Cavalier reviewed the typical gases stored and distributed by their company to hospitals and other medical users; advising that, while the company occasionally dealt with ammonia, in general their firm attempted not to carry any toxic or corrosive gases at their facilities; but rather shipped them directly from their supplier to the customer to avoid that storage.  Mr. Cavalier advised that their storage of such gases required additional MPCA requirements, while direct shipping from point of manufacture to point of use negated those additional requirements. 

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if AirGas would object to an additional condition clarifying that hazardous types of gases would not be stored at the Roseville facility.

 

While not currently having any customers using those types of gases, Mr. Cavalier clarified that there were sometimes government agencies requesting their firm to store ammonia; however, he didn’t anticipate the need to bring such requests to staff for approval each time that request was made; and sought clarification on what gases could not be stored.  Mr. Cavalier advised that any quantities of certain gases needed to be reported to the MPCA as well as the local Fire Department for their awareness in case of emergency or if they were required to access the site; and that that information went through a review board when such chemicals were on site, as well as the company’s own emergency response teams, to address any customer and/or employee exposure to those gases, via a contracted agency, above and beyond any legal or legislative requirements.  Mr. Cavalier noted that it was imperative that the local Fire Department be aware of the flammable gases on site, including oxygen cylinders.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if AirGas could oppose a condition on the CUP that for the time being, AirGas did not store any toxic or corrosive gases on site; and if so desired in the future, that they return for additional approval.

 

Councilmember Johnson clarified that only bulk storage was being considered; that while AirGas may deal with ammonia, they were not storing it at their facility.

 

Mr. Cavalier advised that any storage would be of 100 pounds or less total; and it would be stored outdoors, not indoors.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the Conditional Use was only for outdoor storage of bulk gas cylinders, and not addressing indoor storage, negating any condition on something not being permitted.

 

Mr. Cavalier advised that considerable discussions had been held with staff; and there was a clear understanding on the part of both parties.

 

Councilmember Willmus clarified that AirGas was not opposed to an additional condition on the CUP that there was no storage allowed of certain materials in bulk on site.

 

Mr. Cavalier concurred.

 

Mayor Roe called for any public comment, with no one appearing to speak to this issue.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10898 (Attachment G) entitled, “A Resolution approving the Final Plat of Highcrest Park Second Addition (PF11-010).”

                       

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Mr. Cavalier noted that per Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements related to chemicals, toxic and corrosives were two distinct categories.

 

After further discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Cavalier, it was determined that the term “corrosive” would address intent and cover those categories of concern.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10899 (Attachment H) entitled, “A Resolution Approving Outdoor Storage as a Conditional Use at 2400

Terminal Road (PF11-010);” amended to include an additional Condition (D) on page 2 of the resolution as follows: “No bulk outside storage of toxic or corrosive gases.”       

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:20 p.m.

 

b.            Consider United Properties Request for Rezoning Ordinance and Resolution Approving Preliminary & Final Plat for Assisted Living on Cleveland Avenue

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the rezoning request as detailed in the RCA dated May 9, 2011; with unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were significant differences between HDR-1 and HDR-2 zoning that would require this change.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that the City had reviewed this project for this property a number of years ago; and while this project coming forward now was similar to that for an Assisted Living facility done previously approved as a PUD under Concept approval, once the housing market had declined, both the Assisted Living and Senior Cooperative projects had been put on hold.  Mr. Paschke advised that, due to that delay, and since original approval, the City had since adopted a new zoning code, with PUD’s no longer allowed; and the HDR-2 zoning would allow enough flexibility for the project to meet setback and number of units per acre requirements.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if there would be a problem in the project proceeding as envisioned if the zoning remained HDR-1.

 

Mr. Paschke opined that they would probably not meet requirements for the number of units allowed; with density obviously impacted; and potentially setbacks.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned who the Development Review Committee (DRC) consisted of; with Mr. Paschke advising that it consisted of one or more representatives from all or applicable City departments.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked if it was a standing group; and expressed curiosity on financial questions related to tax increment financing (TIF) on this project.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that the DRC was a standing review committee for all applications and permits; however, he advised that he could not respond to the TIF question as it wasn’t within the realm of land use.

 

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon addressed the TIF assistance provided as part of the first phase of the Applewood Point development and this property’s location within a TIF District; with the intent that any tax value generated would help support Phase I of the project; with this second phase of the project not directly requesting any TIF.

Councilmember McGehee noted that this project was being built for ownership or management by a third party; and as a policy question, questioned the receipt of only $240,000 in park dedication fees, when they had received $300,000 in TIF. 

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that, with the original Phase I and these additional eighty (80) units, there would be significantly more monies realized going forward.

 

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, enact Ordinance No. 1407 (Attachment H) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at 2990, 2996 and Outlot A of Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake, from High Density Residential-1 HDR-1) to High Density Residential-2 (HDR-2).”

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that she was opposed in principal and that the City didn’t need any more assisted living units in the community, since there were already plenty; and that this project did not fill a need in the community for the type of housing needed.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated her preference for additional townhomes and condominiums; and further opined that this would not be a money maker for the developer in terms of tax capacity according to her reading of materials presented previously by Ramsey County Commissioner Jan Parker.

 

Councilmember Johnson recognized Councilmember McGehee’s point; however, opined that this project brought meaningful jobs and value; and spoke in support of it for that reason.

 

Councilmember McGehee, in speaking to the jobs in assisted living facilities, opined that they were not well-paid and were similar to retail jobs, even if they were more meaningful in terms of helping people.

 

Councilmember Pust –noted that she had originally been opposed to this portion of the proposed project when first coming before the City Council for approval.  However, Councilmember Pust noted that the Council majority supported the project; and it was now on the books.  While the City Council could decide not to allow rezoning of the property; Councilmember Pust questioned how that would benefit the property.  Councilmember Pust reiterated past comments related to how the City Council – not being in the housing industry – attempted to speak to the type of housing needed; when a developer who was in the industry felt confident enough to move forward based on their significant research and market studies; as well as the confidence of the financial market in supporting a particular project and type of housing.  Taking that into consideration, Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the rezoning, since the project had already received initial approval and by moving forward, it would avoid a vacant property similar to that of the remainder of the Twin Lakes area.

 

Mayor Roe noted the current 3-4 single family homes and vacant lots and their current tax capacity versus what it will be once developed; and the significant improvement in tax capacity.  Mayor Roe noted that he had supported the original project; and further supported this proposed motion; with HDR-2 zoning serving as the best way to address the zoning code and density issues set up for just such a purpose as this.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

 

Mr. Paschke briefly summarized this portion of the request, as detailed in the RCA.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10900 (Attachment I) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Applewood Pointe of Langton Lake Second Addition (PF11-08);” as amended with technical correction pointed out by Mayor Roe in the “Now Therefore, Be It Resolved… portion from “is” to “are” hereby approved..

 

                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.            Consider a Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Sienna Green Second Addition Plan

Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA dated May 9, 2011.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned when park dedication fees or property was addressed for this plat; and why a fee rather than additional park land.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that park dedication fees were addressed for the entire Sienna Green project with the first phase; and there was nothing further to be incorporated from this small portion of the triangle property.

 

Mr. Trudgeon advised that, as part of the PUD, Sienna Green was required to pay park dedication fees to be submitted as part of the building permit process; and had been determined by the Parks and Recreation Commission to be paid in fees rather than as park land.

 

For future reference, Councilmember Willmus asked staff to clarify park dedication information as part of the their staff reports and summaries.

 

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10901 (Attachment F) entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Preliminary/Final Plat of Sienna Green Second Addition (PF07-068).”

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Consider Approving Joint Powers Agreement for Shared Engineering Services with the City of Maplewood

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz provided a summary of the request as detailed in the RCA dated May 9, 2011; with the City of Roseville being the requestor of services, rather than their usual role in providing those services to other municipalities or agencies.

 

Mayor roe noted that this shared services initiative was in line with the goals and strategies of the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning process.

 

Mr. Schwartz reviewed funding for the position within current budgeting parameters; and intent for using this short-term alternative for the City of Maplewood to avoid a layoff, and for the City of Roseville to alleviate the heavy workload currently being realized by its engineering staff in overseeing the multiple projects currently underway and those proposed.   Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had worked with the City Attorney to develop the JPA to allow staff to flow either way base on needs and as indicated; and as noted by Mayor Roe, the partnering was consistent with the City Council work plan and the Imagine Roseville 2025 vision.  Mr. Schwartz reviewed calculations for various engineering tasks, which would be lower than those rates required to hire a consultant; and depending the additional needs that may be required by the City of Arden Hills, those could be facilitated as well.  Mr. Schwartz noted that the partnering concept continued to grow; and proposed that it be revisited at a future date when CIP funding was more certain and general economic times improved. 

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schwartz advised that Roseville staff would continue to manage projects  and provide general oversight consistent with Roseville expectations and policies/procedures.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the sharing of engineering staff between the City of Roseville and the City of Maplewood.”

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.            Consider Approving Roseville Housing Redevelopment Authority Banners

HRA Executive Director and Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief summary of the request to place “Living Smarter” banners on portions of Larpenteur Avenue and County Road B-2 adjacent to Rosedale; previously approved by the City Council for use by the Roseville Visitors Association (RVA).  Mr. Trudgeon provided a location map for the banners; proposed banners, revised with some font changes for easier reading; total of nine (9) different designs.  Mr. Trudgeon noted potential change in Minnesota Wild trademark approval pending, possibly negating that particular design.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that Planning Staff had been working in conjunction with the Public Works Department, recognizing the in-kind cost for that department in this venture.  Special permission requested at this time mid-year; future annual January approval

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included anticipated life expectancy of the banners (two years) based on weather-related wear and tear; funding for their purchase, related equipment and maintenance from HRA funds; improved quality and initial investment for the banners to avoid future and ongoing costly maintenance and/or replacement; estimated cost for all the banners of $1800 total; in-kind installation cost estimated by the Public Works Department at $4,000; and location of the banners on the City Hall campus for marketing by the Skating Center and OVAL to reach regional traffic and visitors, not Roseville residents.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, to NOT approve the proposed “Living Smarter” banners or their locations.

 

Councilmember Willmus commended the HRA and staff for making ways to market and brand their activities; however, he opined that there were more effective ways to spend dollars; further opining that he wasn’t a fan of banners and their related expenses.  Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of dollars going for marketing at Rosedale.

 

Councilmember Johnson offered that he was not qualified as an great art critic for banners or posters; but supported marketing Roseville, and questioned the rationale of his colleagues for their opposition.

 

Councilmember Pust advised that she was not opposing it; as the HRA’s effective marketing campaign with the “Living Smarter” model had been well-received to-date, especially in conjunction with the annual Home and Garden Fair; and that probably served as the HRA’s rationale in continuing to use that well-known brand and concept in Roseville.  Councilmember Pust suggested that the City Council should defer to the marketing experts; and the communications plan provided by professionals in the field and implemented in other venues over the past year, and as previously reviewed and approved by the City Council.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that she was fine with the brand; however, she didn’t think it added much to the community to have “posters flapping on light poles;” and suggested simply advertising more on livingsmarter.org.  Given other priorities, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was not a reasonable expense and was not an effective use of money at this time.

 

Mayor Roe expressed no preference for approving the banners or not; and suggested the banners may reach a different audience, increasing the variety of that audience.  Mayor Roe deferred to the experts; and spoke in support of allowing the banner locations.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus.

Nays: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Motion failed.

 

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of “Living Smarter” banner locations on Larpenteur Avenue, County Road B-2; and around City Hall Campus as shown on the location map (Attachment B) as part of the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated May 9, 2011;”

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee; Willmus.

Motion carried.

13.      Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

a.    Discuss Council Budget Priority Rankings

Finance Director Miller provided a bench handout entitled “Attachment A – City Council Ranking – sorted by Department; attached hereto and made a part hereof; for tax-supported programs for 2012.  This amended attachment included the rankings of all five (5) individual Councilmembers. 

 

Councilmember Johnson requested an electronic copy of the document; with Mr. Miller duly noting that request.

 

By consensus, staff was asked to make the bench handout, and other related documents available on the City’s website under the Finance Department for budget processes, as done in the past. 

 

Mayor Roe suggested that staff remove 2009 information from the website; and that City Manager Malinen keep a placeholder for budget discussion at the next City Council meeting.

 

b.    Discuss Resolution Requesting Reliability Reports for Electric Power for Roseville Service Area

Two bench handouts were provided related to this item, attached hereto and made a part hereof: consisting of a letter dated May 3, 2011 from the State Attorney General to Xcel Energy; and a May 5, 2011 response form Xcel Energy to the Suburban Rate Authority information requests.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this request had been generated by a resident and as a result of a requested rate increase by Xcel Energy.

 

Mr. Schwartz reviewed events since this item had last come before the City Council; and since distribution of the agenda packet materials.  Mr. Schwartz advised that Xcel Energy had met with staff and Mr. Lambert to address his information request and to discuss Xcel’s management of their system and devices scheduled for replacement; and their outage history in the Brenner/Millwood neighborhood; and related problems experienced that created those outages.  Mr. Schwartz noted that Xcel anticipated delivery of specific information to the City and Mr. Lambert in the near future.  Mr. Schwartz advised that Ms. Collette Jurek, with Xcel Energy, was present at tonight’s meeting to respond to any questions or concerns of the City Council.  Mr. Schwartz advised that the proposed ordinance had been drafted prior to the additional information having been provided; as per Mr. Lambert’s original request.  If the resolution was to be approved, Mr. Schwartz suggested that staff include a cover letter updating events since Mr. Lambert’s original request; and forwarded for the administrative hearing for the rate case.

 

Collette Jurek, Community Relations Manager for Xcel Energy

Ms. Jurek advised that Xcel was working with Mr. Lambert on good faith efforts; and addressing previous outages; and was committed to providing the information requested by Mr. Lambert, upon further review of that request in meeting new information release standards related to Homeland Security issues.

 

Ms. Jurek reviewed national standards and specific data related to Mr. Lambert’s neighborhood and the service reliability; average national and Roseville results over the last three years and comparisons to east and west metro area service centers in Minnesota; outage history summaries since 2007 and common causes of tree interference with overhead lines and subsequent trimming; with no outages reported to Mr. Lambert’s residence since July of 2010; and Xcel’s need to recreate data similar to that received by Mr. Lambert from 2001 – 2003.

 

Councilmember Pust noted that she also lived on Mr. Lambert’s street; and shared his concerns.

 

Ms. Jurek offered to return to the City Council at a future meeting to provide an update once the data had been researched and analyzed.

Dick Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue

As an engineer, Mr. Lambert expressed the unreliability of averages and how they could be misleading depending on how presented.  Mr. Lambert reviewed his information and average outages for his neighborhood; and his interpretation that the feeders needed to be updated.  Mr. Lambert suggested that the requested rate increase by Xcel should allow additional funds to facilitate that needed work.  Mr. Lambert noted that the PUC could require that underperforming equipment be corrected; and asked that the City’s cover letter reinforce that request.  In the proposed resolution, Mr. Lambert suggested striking language in line 35 to remove “timely” and “area-wide.”  Mr. Lambert opined that his request for reports for 2008-2010 should not provide problematic from a Homeland Security issue.

 

Councilmember Pust questioned if a resolution from the City at this time wouldn’t serve to confuse the issue and mix topics; and questioned why the resolution would be provided as part of a rate increase proceeding by Xcel that the City would not otherwise be involved in; and whether the resolution form the City would affect the rate increase.

 

Mr. Schwartz referenced the e-mail from the Suburban Rate Authority’s legal counsel; and their suggestion for moving down another avenue that would not be part of the rate case in front of the PUC and addressing customer concerns.  Mr. Schwartz noted that this issue had received significant attention within Xcel Energy; and not adopting the resolution at this time would give them the benefit of the doubt that they would come through with the requested information; and recommended holding off on adopting the ordinance at this time.

 

Mr. Lambert advised that he had been told that having the City endorse his testimony before the PUC would be very helpful and lend more emphasis.  Mr. Lambert opined that it didn’t seem to be an unreasonable time to make the request when Xcel was seeking more money; and that the PUC could make demands for reasonable information requests from its constituency.

 

Additional discussion included whether to link the proposed resolution to the rate increase or whether a letter could accomplish the same goal provided Xcel Energy provided the information as requested.

 

Ms. Jurek asked that Xcel be given adequate time to respond to Mr. Lambert’s request to update his data; without having to involve the City Council and a resolution to the PUC.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need, from a policy standpoint, to support Mr. Lambert’s communication request in general and overall information on outages in the City of Roseville.

 

Councilmember Willmus supported getting data on the entire City and provided to the City Council on behalf of the entire City, including Mr. Lambert, rather than directed specifically to Mr. Lambert; noting that he had concerns in his neighborhood as well.

 

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of a letter at this, opining that it made more sense; and noting Xcel’s response after one week and Ms. Jurek’s request to be given a reasonable amount of time to respond.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need to receive overall information on City outages, as well as Mr. Lambert’s specific request.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that Mr. Lambert’s request was related to faulty feeder lines and their relationship to any additional rate increases; while the resolution didn’t address that request at all.  Councilmember McGehee expressed confidence that Mr. Lambert would receive the information he’d requested; and asked that Mr. Schwartz draft a letter requesting an annual report for the entire City and a review of feeders; and any failing.

 

Ms. Jurek advised that she received such requests from cities all the time to determine liability within a community; and advised that Xcel could address reliability concerns.  Ms. Jurek advised that Mr. Lambert was the only property owner she’d heard from in the last 1-2 years regarding any reliability concerns; and Xcel’s immediate addressing of any problem areas.  Ms. Jurek offered to meet with neighborhoods to discuss reliability reviews; and offered to provide an annual update to the City Council and discuss reliability and Xcel’s work plan to address issues.

 

Mr. Lambert expressed concern that management staff over Ms. Jurek’s head may stifle her willingness to provide the requested information; and unless the City and/or the PUC provided more weight, the request could be lost.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined that it would be appropriate at this point for staff to send a letter on behalf of the City of Roseville and Mr. Lambert to get the initial report; and once it was known that the report could be generated; a policy be addressed at a later date, thus allowing Xcel to respond in a timely fashion.  Mr. Johnson noted that, if Xcel was unable to meet their projected delivery of the requested information, the City Council had two additional meetings prior to the PUD public comment deadline.

 

Mr. Lambert advised that he was amenable to waiting; but still supported a policy based on his previously-expressed rationale.

 

Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council was not yet ready to adopt a policy, even though it may be indicated in the future; and concurred with Councilmember Johnson in addressing a letter as described.

 

Councilmember Johnson suggested that the City send a letter supporting Mr. Lambert’s efforts as well and his specific request for the report.

 

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to send a letter as outlined above.

 

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion; and since time is of the essence, asked that Mr. Schwartz provide an update at each subsequent City Council meeting to ensure the PUC deadline is met.

 

Councilmember Willmus requested the information for the entire community of Roseville.

 

Mayor Roe asked Councilmember Willmus to clarify if the information he requested was city-wide or aggregate; with Councilmember Willmus clarifying that he sought aggregate information.

 

Ms. Jurek advised that Xcel was developing a new tool, following discussions with Mr. Lambert, that should address his information request and following her discussions with Mr. Schwartz.

 

Johnson offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Pust, that the letter of request include information for the entire City.

 

                        Roll Call (Motion as amended)

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

c.    Set Public Hearing Date for Amendment to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 18 and Discuss TIF Agreement with AEON

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this request specifically setting a public hearing date for potential amendment to TIF District 18 and discussion of a TIF Agreement, as detailed in the staff report dated May 09, 2011.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the details would be addressed fully on June 13, 2011 at the public hearing.

 

James Lenhoff, AEON Representative

Mr. Lenhoff was present, but offered no further comment, opining that staff had summarized the request well.

 

Pust moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10902 (Attachment C) entitled, “Resolution Calling Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1; and the Proposed Adoption of a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 18;”  scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2011 at approximately 6:00 p.m.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Mr. Lenhoff asked that City Council ask questions of AEON through staff; with Mr. Trudgeon noting that a draft of the proposed amendment would be available on June 13, 2011.

 

d.    Receive Lawful Gambling Task Force Report

Two bench handouts were presented related to this item: en e-mail dated May 8, 20111 from Roger B. Hess, Jr.; and a revised “SECOND Amended Agreement Related to the Roseville Community Fund;” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

Councilmember Pust recused herself from the bench as a Councilmember, and advised that she would not be participating in this discussion on behalf of the City Council and would be abstaining from any action; and was serving instead as the President of the North Suburban Community Foundation.  Ms. Pust also introduced Don Salveda (?) a member of the North Suburban Community Foundation since its creation in 1991, as well as its Treasurer since the Foundation’s inception.

 

Ms. Pust noted that the need for amendments and revisions to update the Agreement between the North Suburban Community Fund, as administrator, and the Roseville Community Fund, had come forth as a City Council subcommittee had been formed to review the City’s current gambling ordinance, specifically how many locations a particular organization could have in Roseville for charitable gambling.  Ms. Pust noted that her involvement relating to the NSCF was only part of the discussion; and she was not addressing the initial issue at this time.

 

Ms. Pust reviewed the background of the creation of the Roseville Community Fund, seen as on the cutting edge of local level gambling regulation and recognized by Attorney General Skip Humphrey at the time the City passed their ordinance in the 1990’s.  Ms. Pust noted that at the same time, the State of MN had passed legislation allowing municipalities allowing charitable gambling with options, one of which was to establish a 10% fund, with all licensed entities paying 10% of their net profits to this fund to be used by the City on various charitable purposes, or funding Police and/or Fire activities, exclusive of any pension funding.  Ms. Pust noted that the City set up a 10% fund when passing their ordinance in 1992, with no changes occurring since the resolution was adopted in 1992.  Ms. Pust noted that the City contracts with a non-profit organization, the NSCF, to disburse those funds as outlined.  Ms. Pust noted that, in looking that the gambling ordinance, it was discovered that the City’s Community Fund Agreement referenced multiple outdated statutes and other items; and that an update of the Agreement was needed in order for the Ordinance and Amended Agreement to be consistent.  Thus, Ms. Pust noted that at the recommendation of the NSCF she was in attendance on their behalf tonight.

 

Ordinance

Ms. Pust noted that the only change in the Agreement Establishing the Roseville Community Fund (Attachment D) to the RCA dated May 09, 2011 (Agenda Item 13.d) was specifically correcting the name of the Foundation to “North Suburban Community Foundation,” noting that the Foundation was not and never had been the “Roseville Community Foundation.”  Ms. Pust sought Council action to make the corrections as indicated.

 

Agreement, Second Amended Agreement, and REVISED Second Amended Agreement Related to the Roseville

Using the bench handout provided, and entitled, “SECOND Amended Agreement Related to the Roseville Community Fund; and superseding the agreement included in the agenda packet, Ms. Pust noted that the contract dated October 4, 1991, and later updated in 1994, needed several revisions.

Page 1

Ms. Pust noted changed were needed in the Seconded Amended Agreement, paragraphs and 1 and 2, allowing for grants of up to 75%.  Ms. Pust advised that the Foundation received the 10% funds directly from the City’s Finance Director on a quarterly basis; and 50% of those funds went into an endowment, and 50% of the funds, in addition to interest earned on the endowment, were distributed to charitable organizations.  Having been in operation for twenty years now, the Foundation was seeking authorization to make grants up to 75%, not currently allowed in the existing agreement.

 

Page 1, Paragraph 3 – Donor Advisory Board (DAB)

Ms. Pust provided a background on the formation of the Foundation and its advisory group (DAB) consisting of thirteen (13) people representing the organizations lists in  the agreement, who meet quarterly and accept applications from non-profits seeking funds; hearing their presentations and how the funds would be used to serve people in the community.  Ms. Pust noted that the DAB made recommendations to the Foundation. 

 

Ms. Pust suggested changes as indicated in paragraph 3 would no longer define those organizations represented on the DAB, but would signify no changes in the DAB; but would not list organizations that may not exist from time to time (e.g. Chamber of Commerce).

 

Paragraph 4, Page 2

Ms. Pust suggested that references to MN Statute 475.66 be stricken, since the statute had been repealed.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting to 10:20 p.m.

 

            Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Page 2, Paragraph 5

Ms. Pust noted revisions to the DAB’s fiscal year, and making recommendations with ninety (90) days of that fiscal year; and recommendations for cleaning up and striking references to the original agreement, no longer in effect once amended in 1994.

 

Page 2, Paragraph 6

Ms. Pust suggested two (2) changes that may appear substantive, but form her perspective, were not; and based on how much the Foundation charged the City for administration of the fund.  Ms. Pust noted that the City’s agreement had always stated “up to 3%;” even thought the Foundation had never charged over 1.5%; and had no intention of increasing that fee; thus suggesting that redundant language be stricken.  Ms. Pust suggested striking “B” in its entirety as the Foundation paid the entire audit fee and did not charge the City for the audit, which worked to the City’s advantage.

 

Page 3, Paragraph 9

Ms. Pust noted the only change was a grammatical change.

 

 

Ms. Pust noted that the board had met earlier today at 1:30 p.m. to make sure the Board’s recommendations to the City Council were relevant.

 

Mayor Roe questioned if the Foundation preferred that the changes be adopted now rather than when the Ordinance was amended.

 

Ms. Pust advised that, from the Board’s perspective, these were just administrative and technical changes; and it was preferred that the Board not need to be represented at an additional meeting.

 

Discussion among Ms. Pust, Mr. Salveda, and Councilmembers included identifying interest earnings and capital gains on interest income; confirmation of the continued representation on the DAB by the City Manager or his designee; allowing the DAB to make decisions on representation, under the auspices of the NSCF, whose advisory board it was; industry standards in charging administrative fees of up to 3% identified by the City upon the Foundation’s creation, but that had never been implemented by the Foundation and was not a future intent; and current magnitude of the fund estimated at $700,000.

 

Ms. Pust noted that make up of the Foundation was drawn from various organizations, including youth athletic organizations, serving this community, and had been eventually a compromise composition after much debate.

 

Johnson moved that the NSCF name be duly reflected in the City’s ordinance.

 

After further discussion, it was the consensus to bring back the agreement and ordinance at a future meeting.

 

Ms. Pust recognized the due diligence of Mr. Salverda in investing the funds, making the organization able to withstand the latest economic downturn.  Ms. Pust advised that a law had now been adopted that would prevent speculative investing and advised that the Foundation would be returning in the future with a resolution to that effect for City Council action in recognizing this new legislation.

 

Other Gambling Issues

Ms. Pust advised that there were numerous legal revisions needed in the City’s ordinance due to the repeal of many referenced State Statutes; however, she deferred to the City Attorney to make those revisions and recommendations to the City Council.

 

Councilmember Johnson opined, for the public record, that outside gambling foundations seeking to manage gambling sites in Roseville be prevented form doing so.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the current ordinance is prohibitive for existing gambling organizations in Roseville to have more than one site, additional investigation had been done to determine if other non profits were interested in sponsoring or hosting another license.  In short, Councilmember Johnson advised that Finance Director Miller had sent out a letter to those gambling association licensees to seek their interest in carrying a second license, with only two (2) affirmative responses: B-Dale Club and North Suburban.  Councilmember Johnson noted that Roger Toogood of the RCL had also sought input within the community of other non  profits that may be interested in hosting a license; with no responses to-date.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the RCL endorsed Roseville-based organizations hosting up to two (2) sites at this time.

 

Councilmember Johnson suggested several things for the City Attorney to add, including language prohibiting non-Roseville gambling associations taking part in gambling within Roseville City limits; and also revising the ordinance to address references to antiquated or repealed statutes, as indicated by Ms. Pust. 

 

Mayor Roe suggested that the Task Force, consisting of Councilmembers Johnson and Pust, work with the City Attorney on ordinance revisions.

 

City Attorney Gaughan asked that specific amendments be provided to him by e-mail.

 

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting to 10:35 p.m.

 

            Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

e.    Receive CIP Interim Update

Mayor Roe advised that the Task Force review was underway and looking at extending the CIP from ten (10) to twenty (20) years; with two recent actions occurring at the staff level at the request of the Task force: a fund balance study on various funds supporting capital purchases, using CIP plans for seeing where the City was at and an annual gap, and on that basis, Mayor Roe advised that the Task Force would then return with how to address those gaps.  The second staff directive was to determine a timeframe to build to a solution and defer capital purchases as indicated; and a review of the CIP to make sure it was current and there were no items that were no longer needed based on current visions and budgets.

 

Mayor Roe advised that the Task Force anticipated returning in June with another report; and that further study may take longer, as advisory commission review, such as a review of special assessments for public works projects, would be sought.  Mayor Roe anticipated a partial recommendation coming forward in June at the earliest.

 

Moving forward, Councilmember Johnson advised that the philosophy of the Task Force was to remove the Fire Station and Parks and Recreation Master Plan from the CIP review at this time, while setting them aside, but keeping them in view.  Councilmember Johnson noted that the Parks and Recreation survey results will help determine those priorities; and this study would address all other capital needs in the CIP that are currently tangible.

14.       City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.

15.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Johnson requested that the May 16, 2011 agenda include discussion of the off-sale liquor ordinance.

16.      Adjourn

Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:28 pm.