City
Council Meeting Minutes
July 25, 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 July: Pust; Willmus; McGehee; Johnson;
and Roe). City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi arrived at the meeting at
approximately 6:50 pm.
2.
Approve Agenda
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Item 7.h entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Approving Assisted
Living Facility as a Conditional Use at 621-637 Larpenteur Avenue.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Human Rights Commission Interviews
Interviews of approximate ten
minute duration were held with candidates for Human Rights Commission (HRC)
vacancies, with Judi Kaper, Kristen Doneen, Brandy Fountain, and Wayne Groff.
All Councilmembers were present, along with HRC Vice Chair Gary Grefenberg.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the interview portion of the meeting at
approximately 6:50 pm and reconvened in regular business session at
approximately 6:57 pm.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak
at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports and
Announcements
Mayor Roe announced Implementation
Meeting #3 in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process, scheduled for July
28, 2011 at 7:00 pm at the Skating Center, Rose Room. Mayor Roe noted that
this meeting would provided for a presentation of the proposed Step 1 in the
process, and allow an opportunity for community participation and input on that
proposed step; as well as receiving updates from Implementation Teams involved
in the process.
Councilmember Pust announced the
next meeting of the “Beyond the Yellow Ribbon” campaign on July 28, 2011 at
7:00 pm in the Willow Room at City Hall.
Councilmember Johnson welcomed
Connor Rohloff from Boy Scout Troop #31 in the audience tonight.
a.
Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) Report on
Shared Fire Services
Councilmember Johnson noted a
recent meeting of the Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) in
Shoreview, MN of which he is a board member representing the City of Roseville,
along with Alternate Councilmember Pust. Councilmember Johnson advised that he,
Councilmember Pust, and City Manager Bill Malinen had all attended for a
discussion of trends in firefighting, including shared fire services.
Councilmember Johnson advised that Fire Chief Tim Boehlke of the Lake Johanna
Volunteer Fire Department (LJVFD); Fire Chief Steve Luekken of the Maplewood
Fire Department, and City of Roseville Fire Chief Tim O’Neill had been at the
meeting and participated in the presentation.
Councilmember Johnson advised that
the presentation and discussion provided an overview of station design to
facilitate changes in services and how they’re provided; ways shared services
are already being used, whether an agreement is in place or not; and how
surrounding departments select their equipment to complement each other in the
region to avoid redundancy and/or purchase of specialized equipment not used
frequently. Councilmember Johnson advised that the City of Maplewood and the
LJVFD was also in a process, similar to the City of Roseville, in paring down
or re-evaluating their stations to adjusted service models. Councilmember
Johnson noted that the City of Maplewood had their own ambulance business for
some time, and their rationale for this lucrative business was to use those
excess profits for needs in the Fire Department.
Councilmember Johnson asked that
Chief O’Neill come forward with a summary of the meeting, as well as activities
that had occurred since that meeting to further that dialogue.
Chief O’Neill advised that Fire
Chiefs within Ramsey County are always pursuing ways to assist each other and
reduce costs; and noted the auto-aid agreement between the City of Roseville
and the LJVFD to send a crew from a respective department to the other area for
any major events, part of a three (3) year agreement that had worked well.
Chief O’Neill also noted the existence of the Technical Rescue Team between the
departments that had been operating over the last eight (8) months to share training
and equipment costs. Chief O’Neill noted that both departments were paged for
certain events, and responded with fully-trained teams, and would continue to
work together from that shared services perspective.
Chief O’Neill advised that the
entire Board of Ramsey County F ire Chiefs met monthly, and since the RCCLG
meeting, had been identifying other areas for shared services to address
“low-hanging fruit.” Chief O’Neill advised that each department was making
sure they purchased compatible Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA’s),
equipment that provided firefighters with air tanks with radio transponders
directly to the Fire Chief’s car to allow them to be tracked from the command
vehicle, should they become trapped or are in a prone position, allowing
immediate tracking of their position for rescue. Chief O’Neill noted that, in
the past, the eight (8) departments each had their own and often different
gear; and the Chiefs were trying to identify and create long-term benefits for
sharing equipment. While not sure if consolidation efforts would be pursued in
the near future, Chief O’Neill advised that it was the intent of the Chiefs of
those departments to set a foundation and move in that direction.
Councilmember Pust noted that each
department displayed the location of fire stations collectively on a county
map; and they were generally well-dispersed county-wide. Councilmember Pust
suggested that, should consolidation be pursued, locating new fire halls should
be considered now to move toward that direction in the future. Councilmember
Pust noted that the Fire Chiefs appeared to be interested in consolidation; and
noted recent changes made in Roseville from the Fire Relief Association to PERA
and cost savings realized by the City of Maplewood in that move.
Chief O’Neill advised that
apparatus and stations were being evaluated, noting that as departments moved
from strictly volunteer to staffed departments, not as many stations were
needed; with the City of Maplewood moving from a 5-6 station concept to 2-3;
similar to the City of Roseville moving from 3 to 1 station centrally-located
in Roseville. Chief O’Neill noted that the department had proven to-date that
they could operate out of one station.
Chief O’Neill advised that the
Roseville Department had eliminated one ladder truck several years ago, at a
cost savings of in excess of $1 million, based on the rationale that another
ladder unit was not needed given the agreements in place with other departments
having that equipment. Chief O’Neill advised that the City of Roseville
retained 1 ladder truck to provide quick rescue if needed; but that the other
departments were close enough to get another unit in place very quickly.
Councilmember Pust lauded the
department on that excellent use of tax dollars and strategic planning; and
suggested that be brought to bear with other communities and whether major
apparatus is needed individually. Councilmember Pust noted that it was
refreshing to see departments and their chiefs supportive of pursuing more
shared services and/or consolidation, and not being competitive or having turf
wars. However, Councilmember Pust noted that they had all remarked that
consolidation efforts would not move forward without strong leadership pushing
for it at the elected level, not at the staff level.
Chief O’Neill concurred, opining
that the chiefs worked well together, with departments represented by long-term
chiefs and personnel working together and recognizing their different or skill
levels for management or in the field. Chief O’Neill noted the flexibility of
all parties in accepting the role they were playing that particular day when
assisting other departments, advising that it served to translate into a lack
of turf battles.
Councilmember Pust noted updated RCLLG
directories had been provided for individual Councilmembers at the dais.
City Manager Bill Malinen noted
the recognition of the Roseville Fire Department in being the model for other
departments in moving to a paid, on-call staffed department, the first of three
to do so, and providing a more effective response time as well as more
cost-efficiencies. City Manager Malinen lauded the department for that
initiative.
Chief O’Neill noted that any type
of staffing model will need to be retrofitted for the type of services being
provided; but from a chief’s perspective, they were attempting to start with
obvious shared service opportunities and would tackle larger issues as they
became confident that their respective City Councils were on board with pursuing
those items.
Councilmember McGehee
congratulated Chief O’Neill on establishing excellent medical response teams,
and asked if pursuing an ambulance service as a potentially profitable venture
was indicated, given the department’s excellent EMT staff.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
he anticipated some radical changes in the nation’s health care system in the
next few years that may force some changes in the industry that may also put
the City in a situation where other alternatives could be pursued.
Chief O’Neill stressed the
importance of the public being assured that when they called 9-1-1, someone
would be there. Beyond that, Chief O’Neill recognized the challenges in
understanding new health care laws and other changes that may occur in the near
future. Chief O’Neill noted that, as first responders, those services were
based on what they were legally able to provide, which did not include patient
transport. Chief O’Neill advised that, based on state legislation, Allina was
the Emergency transport agency in the Roseville public service area (PSA) and
any changes were subject to revised legislation regulated by the Emergency
Medical Services Regulating Board (EMSRA). Chief O’Neill advised that one of
the City’s firefighters was now in charge of the EMSRA.
Councilmember Willmus commended
the Roseville department and other area Fire Chiefs for pursuing consolidation,
and encouraged them to continuing exploring that.
Mayor Roe clarified the difference
in “consolidation” and “shared services,” and the point made by Chief O’Neill
for the need for individual and collective political discussions if
consolidation was a consideration.
Chief O’Neill advised that recent
meetings had provided great educational opportunities for all parties; and that
lots of positive feedback had been heard from elected and fire staff parties;
and hoped this would remove some of the territorial walls that may be there.
However, Chief O’Neill opined that he didn’t see this happening overnight.
Mayor Roe, as a participant in the
North Suburban Mayors/City Managers group, noted similar discussions on joint
purchases of major equipment, and how to address formulas for cost-sharing of
those items.
Chief O’Neill advised that fire
department staff was already working through such a cost-sharing formula for
shared purchase of fire turnout gear, noting that it was the Roseville
department’s turn to seek bids, for replacement every five (5) years to replace
1/3 of the gear. As part of that group to purchase gear, the departments purchased
together to save an approximate 10% rather than single purchasing that gear;
with Chief O’Neill noted that this was only one of the efforts that would
continue among departments.
Councilmember Johnson asked that
Chief O’Neill see if there was a consensus for alternative fuel sources for
rolling stock; and whether that was worth exploring for emergency vehicle use
form a group level.
Chief O’Neill advised that he
would do so; however, he cautioned that the big diesel vehicles were quite
sensitive, but for smaller units, it could be looked into.
5.
Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of July 18, 2011 Meeting
Comments and corrections to draft
minutes had been submitted by the City Council 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 July 18, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 9, Line 9 (McGehee)
Change Somali “culture” to
“community”
·
Page 25, Line 37 (Roe)
Spelling correction of
“Councilmembers”
·
Page 28, Line 22 (McGehee)
Add “increase.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
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
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$389,264.77
|
|
63321 – 63397
|
935,484.82
|
|
Total
|
$1,324,749.59
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business Licenses
McGehee moved, Johnson
seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1)
year, for those applicants as follows:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of
License
|
|
Juut Salonspa; 1641 County Road C
|
Massage Therapy
Establishment
|
|
Stephen’s Hair Salon; 1125 West County Road B
|
Massage Therapy
Establishment
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services
presented as follows:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
|
IT
|
Access
Communications
|
Internet Access Switches
|
$8,128.74
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Receive Quarterly IR 2025 Report
Mayor Roe noted, on page 4 of the
report, that the reference highlighted for consideration of roundabouts
actually related to the previous section (pathways).
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
receipt of the July 2011 Quarterly Update of the Imagine Roseville 2025
Medium and Long-Term Goals, as presented and detailed in the Request for
Council Action (RCA) dated July 25, 2011; as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Receive Quarterly Shared Services Report
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
receipt of the July 2011 Quarterly Shared Services Update, as presented and
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 25, 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Receive Quarterly City Grant Applications Report
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
receipt of the July 2011 Quarterly Grant Applications Update, as presented and
detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated July 25, 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for West Snelling Drive Sidewalk
Construction
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10915 (Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Awarding
Bids for West Snelling Drive Sidewalk Project;” to O’Malley Construction of Le
Center, MN, in an amount not to exceed $52,431.51.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
i.
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Multi-Agency Joint Powers
Agreement with the BCA to Participate in the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force Program (MICAC)
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10916 (Attachment A) entitled, “City of Roseville
Participation in the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
Program (MICAC) Resolution; as amended” authorizing the City of
Roseville Police Department to enter into the Multi-Agency Law Enforcement
Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment B – Contract No. DPS-M-0676)) with the
Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
a.
Adopt a Resolution Approving Assisted Living Facility as a
Conditional Use at 621-637 Larpenteur Avenue (former Consent Item 7.h)
At the request of Mayor Roe,
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized this request as detailed in the
Request for Council Action (RCA ) dated July 25, 2011. Mr. Lloyd advised that
all site development was required to meet zoning code requirements with the
exception of some setbacks that didn’t presently meet requirements, but were
not recommended by staff for the same precision as some in the past.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
rationale in removing the code requirement for 150 square feet of green space
for each individual in an assisted living facility; and her difficulty in
separating this facility from that of a prison. Councilmember McGehee
questioned what type of assisted living facility this represented when
residents couldn’t go outside. While recognizing the need to avoid residents
wandering off, Councilmember McGehee opined that they should still be able to
have sufficient green space to allow residents and staff, or residents and
their visitors to go outside. Councilmember McGehee, while wanting the project
to move forward, requested that the requirement remain.
Related to other issues and
concerns provided to her by neighbors, Councilmember McGehee advised that those
concerns were related to fencing and buffering for adjacent properties, as well
as the height of the building. Councilmember McGehee advised that she had
not found any place in the conditions of the Conditional Use that would provide
peace of mind to neighbors on those issues beyond discussions held at the
Planning Commission’s Public Hearing level. Councilmember McGehee referenced a
particular example in place in Roseville and lack of that Conditional Use in
place to provide any resolution for that situation, advising that she didn’t
want to create a similar problem on this site, and sought more specificity in
the Conditional Use and related conditions to avoid a recurrence.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
the exterior of this building looked like a “barracks” and suggested the
developer articulate the building design better while also providing for some
interior open space for potential outside access for residents, staff and/or
family members while keeping everyone safe. Councilmember McGehee questioned
the height of this building to the adjacent apartment buildings.
Mr. Lloyd noted that this proposed
structure was taller than the flat roof apartment building next door; but that
the pitched roof of the building was within height limitations of that zoning
district; and advised that the building would appear shorter with a flat roof
versus a pitched roof. As addressed at the Planning Commission’s Public
Hearing, Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicants had attempted to design the
building to reflect the residential nature of this building and that of the
adjacent residential to the north with the pitched roofs of those homes, even
though it added some height.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
how tall the building was; with Mr. Lloyd responding that there were three (3)
living stories, with one of those at garden level.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had no issue with the building, provided it had more articulation and
didn’t shade the buildings to the north.
Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had
done some preliminary review of potential shading of this building to adjacent
properties, including the apartment building; and found that it would not
create shadows on the apartment building, only on the project site. Related to
concerns that a chain link fence would be installed, Mr. Lloyd advised that the
City’s zoning code would not allow for a chain link fence to be used for
screening or buffering, but would require it to be constructed of composite
materials or wood to provide privacy fencing. While it was not staff’s
practice to apply conditions to a Conditional Use or other applications for
requirements already addressed elsewhere in City Code, Mr. Lloyd noted that it
was the Council’s prerogative to add additional conditions at their discretion.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
additional conditions may provide neighbors with the assurance that they had
been heard. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that she felt strongly about
not removing the 150 square feet per resident for green space.
Mayor Roe asked that staff provide
their rationale for whether or not it was a good idea to eliminate that 150
square foot requirement.
Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s
rationale, during their review and assessment, was that the nature of that
requirement for usable open space for residents on the property was not
specific to the culture of this proposed operation that didn’t allow residents
to freely roam the site or go off-site; making the 150 square foot minimum
requirement irrelevant for this proposal. If the City Council mandated that
this Conditional Use requirement be met, based on future operations or
different clientele, Mr. Lloyd advised that the requirement could be met
through vacating a part of the wide Dale Street right-of-way, and adding more
of a side yard; or through access to public parks and open spaces within 300’
of the property. Mr. Lloyd noted that there are both located within that area;
however, their entrances would be further away; but advised that a
determination could be made at the time a future operator or use didn’t meet
that requirement. If not meeting them at that time, Mr. Lloyd advised that the
operator would then be forced to operate with fewer beds to meet Conditional
Use requirements.
Mayor Roe questioned if that was
laid out in recommended conditions.
Mr. Lloyd responded that it was
not laid out specifically; but that with any Conditional use, it must meet all
relevant code requirements.
Mayor Roe questioned if the 150
square foot requirement needed to be addressed as a condition.
Mr. Lloyd responded that it could
be a condition, and may not be redundant with other City code; however, he
noted that there were other code requirements in a Commercial District that may
have the same setback requirements as other residential uses in that district;
however, there were no other setbacks for residential uses and thus not
addressed in the recommended conditions of approval.
Councilmember Pust questioned if
vacation by the City of its right-of-way was the only option to bring the
property into compliance if the use changed.
Mr. Lloyd advised that it would be
one option; and noted that this project had been before the city in some
fashion for three (3) years; and staff was willing to work on vacating some of
that right-of-way as long as sufficient right-of-way was retained for the
underground infrastructure needs. Mr. Lloyd advised that this had always been
a viable situation considered by staff regardless of who owned the property or
who had use of that surface.
Councilmember Pust opined that she
was uncomfortable in approving this, if the only option for the owner is for
the City to vacate its right-of-way to allow compliance for the 150 foot
requirement or make them close their doors. While not her area of expertise,
Councilmember Pust questioned why the applicant for this assisted living facility
would not want to provide green space for its residents in a secured area.
Mr. Lloyd noted a fenced area
available on the Larpenteur Avenue side for some outdoor leisure, providing
benches and landscaping.
Discussion included the building
and green space location immediately adjacent to Larpenteur Avenue; and how
close the applicant was to achieving the 150 square foot requirement for green
space on the entire site; and the number of beds required to meet code
requirements depending on the type of service provided,
Councilmember Pust questioned why
the applicant was suggesting twenty-five (25) parking stalls when only eleven
(11) were needed.
Mr. Lloyd advised that this had
been a revision by the applicant to address neighborhood concerns about street parking
on Alta Vista, and their attempt to facilitate those concerns from their
original plan of 14-15 spaces presented by the applicant at the Public Hearing
to maximize parking on the site.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if the applicant could consider use of the right-of-way for parking instead of
behind the building, allowing for additional green space.
Mayor Roe opined that he would
prefer to credit the applicant with use of the right-of-way for their green
space requirements versus for parking. Mayor Roe questioned whether he would
be willing to support the use of right-of-way for anything other than green
space.
Discussion ensued on the
application review timing and possibility for the City to extend it another 60 days
for additional review; with Mr. Lloyd advising that state statute provided the
City with the ability to extend the review period.
Mayor Roe reviewed the options
available for Council action tonight: vote to approve, vote to deny; or vote to
table with instructions.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
the business model would drive the customer; and if the customer was willing to
accept this model and design, it was fine with him rather than his attempting
to micromanage assisted living facilities. Councilmember Johnson advised that
he was prepared to proceed in approving this application tonight; and if the
only concern was whether clients would have sufficient area to walk around
outside, he opined that it was up to the applicant to meet market demand in
designing for their clientele. Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of
approval of the request as presented.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he was concerned with the open space area requirement and wondered if this
proposed project wasn’t too big for the site. Councilmember Willmus opined
that he would like to allow additional time for the developer to take a second
look; but overall he liked the project and would typically concur with
Councilmember Johnson’s comments with the exception of the right-of-way being
figured into the open space requirements. Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of tabling action to a time specific.
Mayor Roe noted that, if the item
was tabled until the August 22, 2011 meeting, action could still be taken
before the September 2, 2011 review deadline.
Mr. Lloyd advised that the
applicant had extended the application for completion of the traffic study.
Related to the proposed sidewalk
location, Mayor Roe questioned staff’s recommended location.
Mr. Lloyd advised that it was a
universal acknowledgment at the staff level that users of the pathway would not
be coming from Dale Street and such a location would be less useful or
convenient than one going toward Alta Vista Drive. Mr. Lloyd advised that the
Public Works Department had recommended this location based on the overall
pathway master plan and the more angled alignment consistent with how the site
would be used.
Mayor Roe asked that, if the
action was to table this item, staff look more specifically and whether the
sidewalk could be put in the right-of-way and provide additional flexibility on
site.
McGehee moved, Pust seconded,
TABLING action on this item until the August 22, 2011 regular City Council
meeting.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: Johnson.
Motion carried.
12.
General Ordinances for Adoption
13.
Presentations
a.
Joint Meeting with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Mayor Roe welcomed HRA Chair Dean
Maschka and HRA Member William Masche to tonight’s meeting. Staff in
attendance included HRA Executive Director Patrick Trudgeon and Housing
Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey.
Chair Maschka highlighted and
expounded on some of the items detailed in the Request for Council Action (RVA)
dated July 25, 2011.
On a personal note, Member Masche
expressed his continuing pride in being a Roseville resident; and his
appreciation of the governance and management of the City by the City Council.
Member Masche expressed his sincere interest, along with Chair Maschka, for an
opportunity in the near future for a joint work session for the City Council
and HRA to obtain the City Council’s thoughts on housing in Roseville and tools
available, beyond bonding, to further the City’s good housing stock and to
maintain and continue to enhance its value.
Chair Maschka and Member Masche
noted the success of the City’s code enforcement efforts, and commended staff
on their work on it and the great value it provided to Roseville residents.
However, Member Masche observed that the City’s housing stock continued to age
and require more maintenance; and that while most neighborhoods were
presentable, there were areas needing improvement; and encouraged everyone to
work together on exterior code enforcement issues. Chair Maschka noted that
the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) was in its second cycle, addressing
more neighborhoods and homes than the first cycle, and was finding residents
very receptive and positive about the program, recognizing that the City was
attempting to enhance their quality of life.
Member Masche opined that the
economic downturn would eventually be alleviated, and questioned what housing
stock would look like in five (5) years based on current sellers and buyers;
and asked that the City Council give consideration, along with the HRA, to how
the City could best take advantage of that market when it reversed itself.
Member Masche noted the many and
varied opportunities that could become evident; and opined that one of those
was the recent development through the HRA of the livingsmarter.org website and
marketing campaign efforts, providing a very interesting marketing concept and
proving very successful in bringing people into Roseville for different reasons
beyond typical HRA tools such as loans. Member Masche shared some statistics
from the website since it was initiated in November of 2010, with the number of
hits, frequency and uniqueness of visits, and areas of interest from the
forty-five (45) regions, with the states of MN, CA, WI, NY, MO, and IL ranking
the top five states and interests. Member Masche opined that this was a
resource bringing people to Roseville that differentiated it from other cities;
and asked that the City Council attempt to jettison itself five (5) years into
the future to determine how the City’s housing market would look or how the
City wanted it to look rather than focusing or lamenting on today’s doomsday
and foreclosure crisis; thereby positioning the City in a spot to capture those
new residents in the best city and best metropolitan location available – the
City of Roseville.
Member Masche reiterated the HRA’s
interest in a joint work session with the City Council to discuss these future
issues.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of a
joint discussion; noting that it fit in with the City’s planned Strategic
Planning session and the larger picture to address how to grow the City’s tax
base over the long-term; and opined that a good follow-up to that discussion
would be housing.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
the HRA outline comment for “researching the needs of children and families in
our community along with how intergeneration housing may be able to address
those needs.”
Housing Program Manager Jeanne
Kelsey advised that those were two (2) distinct items; with the HRA having
commissioned a market study of the community in 2009, that had previously been
presented to the City Council as well as being available online, and areas
outlined in that study where the City was missing affordable senior housing
options.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she was hearing from seniors that they wanted more non-affordable options
within Roseville, rather than them needing to pursue those townhome or
condominium opportunities in Edina or Plymouth. Councilmember McGehee opined
that there was adequate housing for families; but that the seniors making
comment to her were not interested in affordable housing opportunities; and
suggested that there was a market niche for higher-income housing for seniors.
Councilmember McGehee questioned the HRA’s charter on housing, and if that was
exclusive to affordable housing opportunities; or if it was to provide a more
diverse housing stock. Councilmember McGehee quoted statistics she’d
researched on the City’s housing stock and pricing categories.
Ms. Kelsey responded that the
Comprehensive Market Study was done in progression to determine what was
missing in the community’s housing needs; and that was the direction being
followed by the HRA.
Mayor Roe sought additional
information on the research for needs of children and families in the community.
Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA
had received a grant through the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA)
for an intern to study and determine the needs in Roseville for children and
families, rather than one entity attempting to cite the greatest needs for
families and children. Ms. Kelsey advised that this would allow the HRA to
look at the potential of intergenerational housing to solve social and welfare
needs within the community.
Councilmember Willmus asked Ms.
Kelsey to address the mechanics of the HRA’s participation in the Rondo Land
Trust program.
Ms. Kelsey advised that this was a
tool used by the HRA to prevent people from being removed from their homes
between eviction notices and final foreclosure of the home. Ms. Kelsey noted that
this provided experts to work with these people and provide assistance for
families if they have the economic means to stay in their homes, through buying
down their mortgage to a more affordable level. In this program, Ms. Kelsey
advised that the homeowner would sign over ownership of their land to the Trust
and lease it back for 99 years. Ms. Kelsey advised that only two (2) had been
done to-date, one in Shoreview and one in St. Paul. Ms. Kelsey noted that this
infrequency was due in large part to lack of timely information to assist
families before it was too late.
Councilmember Johnson reviewed an
interesting analogy he received from someone in the mortgage industry, likening
the housing market return and its timing with that of a failing collegiate
sports team. Councilmember Johnson noted it was like a new coach coming in,
and taking four (4) years to improve the performance of the team, similar to
the need for existing adjustable rate mortgages (ARM’s) to expire and more
healthy loans taking over. Councilmember Johnson noted this would then allow
the mortgage and banking industry to improve performance and return to a
healthy position.
Chair Maschka concurred, along
with noting the younger generation cycle in their marital and employment status
over that 3-5 year timeframe.
Chair Maschka noted that he and
Councilmember Pust had also discussed the look of retirement going forward, and
opined that it would be substantially different than that of previous
generations; creating the need for review of existing and future policy. Chair
Maschka noted the changing health and lifestyles needs of the new retirees and
their longevity; and the relevancy sought by this new retirement generation;
and the opportunities available for housing and other community needs.
Mayor Roe and Councilmember Pust
noted changes in retirement ages; and from a federal perspective to raise those
retirement ages to address financial issues.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if the HRA had a specific target number for affordable housing units for
Roseville, whether City or Metropolitan Council preferences.
Ms. Kelsey pointed out that the
2009 Comprehensive Market Study done would need to be updated every five (5)
years; and that the market and demand would also change. Ms. Kelsey noted an
update was scheduled for2014; and clarified that the study provided specific
numbers in various categories and price points for those various categories.
Ms. Kelsey noted that the Metropolitan Council’s information also drove the
HRA’s annual spending requirements as well.
Councilmember McGehee advised
that, in her discussions with Metropolitan Council representatives, their
studies also looked at the quality of jobs and available public
transportation. While Roseville had a fairly good bus system, Councilmember
McGehee opined that the community had a number of poorly paid retail jobs.
While continued comments were made on the great parks and recreation facilities
the community had to offer and how to get more support for them and encourage families
with children to locate in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee opined that there
remained a need to build housing for seniors and bring in employment that paid
head-of-household jobs. Rather than engineering a specific type of community,
Councilmember McGehee further opined that the future of Roseville needed to be
considered as well; and opined that it was not an accident that Roseville was
the most senior of the suburbs; but that it did not rank as having the best
housing stock or providing head-of-household jobs.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the point made by Ms. Kelsey were not lost on him; and opined that in reviewing
grants and affordable housing options, the City may be ahead of Metropolitan
Council projections, Roseville remained one of the higher rent communities
around right now; and questioned whether the Metropolitan Council had classed
the City of Roseville accurately based on those rents.
Ms. Kelsey noted rent-restricted
versus market rent units; and changes based on supply and demand. Ms. Kelsey
opined that it was her understanding that the supply for rental housing was
diminishing, causing rents to excel.
Mayor Roe opined that it made
sense to follow-up tonight’s discussion with a strategic planning discussion
for larger city issues as well as future housing needs.
Ms. Kelsey advised that when the
HRA did their periodic strategic planning updates, they sought City
Councilmember involvement; and anticipated another HRA strategic meeting in
January.
Councilmember Pust commended the
HRA on coming forward with a zero percent levy increase recommendation again
this year; and thanked them for their continued diligence in this effort, while
allowing them to continue work on good programs for the community.
Councilmember Johnson thanked Ms.
Kelsey for her very favorable representation of the City on her recent KSTP
television spot.
Mayor Roe concurred.
14.
Public Hearings
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Consider City Abatement for Unresolved violations of City Code at
1205 Sandhurst
Permit Coordinator Don Munson
reviewed violations, originated by neighbors, at this single-family detached
home, located at 1205 Sandhurst Drive, currently vacant and in foreclosure,
with current owners shown as Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe. Mr. Munson provided an update,
including pictures, of violations, consisting of disrepairs on the garage,
including missing siding and paint (a violation of City Code Sections 407.02.J.
and 407.02.K); a fence in disrepair (a violation of City Code Sections
407.02.J. and 407.02.K); and junk and debris in the yard (a violation of City
Code, Sections 407.02D and 407.03H); with abatement costs to replace missing
siding, repair and paint the garage, repair the fence; and remove junk and
debris estimated at approximately $2,500.00.
Mr. Munson advised that a notice
had been sent to the owners, with no response and no work completed. Mr.
Munson further advised that the property owner of record, and the bank handling
the foreclosure had been notified of the proposed abatement and tonight’s
meeting; and that the bank had responded that they were seeking additional time
to obtain bids for completion of the work on their own. However, Mr. Munson
noted that there was no guarantee on the date for accomplishment or that the
work would be done, and suggested that the City Council allow three (3) weeks
from today, August 15, 2011, for completion of the work by the bank’s
contractors, allowing the bank a full 30-days from their original notification
from the City.
Mayor Roe confirmed that there was
no one in the audience representing the homeowner or bank.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
if there was any public perception in the City granting an extension for a
bank-owned property, and why the bank seemed uncommitted to doing the work; and
similar timing for the City to actually process the abatement anyway, negating
the need for an extension.
Mr. Munson advised that this
contract would probably be let earlier, since it was a quicker fix that some
past violations. However, Mr. Munson noted that it was preferable for the
property owner or bank to complete the work rather than the City using its time
and resources. Mr. Munson advised that the bank’s lack of commitment was
apparently related to process and receiving authorization from superiors.
Johnson moved, Pust seconded,
authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance
violations at 1205 Sandhurst Drive, if not completed by the bank by August
15, 2011, by hiring general contractors to replace missing siding, repair
and paint the garage, repair the fence; and remove junk and debris estimated at
approximately $2,500.00; with actual abatement and administrative costs billed
to the property owner; and if not paid, staff is directed to recover costs as
specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe sought an update on a
previous case involving an exterior stairway; with Mr. Munson advising that the
property owner was making progress, and had removed the stairway; with staff
extending the time for him to complete the work due to the high temperatures
and humidity of late.
16.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Continue Discussion on the 2012/2013 City Manager Recommended
Budget
City Manager Malinen noted a bench
handout provided by Finance Director Chris entitled, “City of Roseville,
Capital Improvement Plan SUMMARY for Selected Property Tax-Supported Items,
2012-2013; attached hereto and made a part hereof.
City Manager Malinen provided a
brief background, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated
July 25, 2011 and revisions made through redirection to the City’s capital
replacement funding programs, based on earlier recommendation from the CIP Task
Force; with the specifics provided in the bench handout.
Finance Director Chris Miller
presented a summary of program cuts recommended for implementation to achieve
the spending goals under the new methodology to reduce the City’s operating
budget to free funds for capital improvements. Mr. Miller cautioned that this
was not the only iteration that would come before the City Council, with staff
in the process of continuing to refine budget documents. Mr. Miller advised
that the purpose of tonight’s presentation was to get something to the City
Council and community, and highlighting some major cuts being contemplated.
Mr. Miller advised that he would focus on program budget reductions in the City
Manager-recommended 2012/2013 budget
Admin Program Reductions
$ 500 City Council
training and conferences
$1,750 Human Rights and
Ethics Commission expenses
$7,000 Employee medical
testing, wellness, tuition reimbursement
$2,000 Employee
recognition program
$ 350 Telephone
and conferences
$9,255 (Elections)
shifted to Communications Fund – supported by the cable franchise (net)
Finance and Central Services
Program Reductions
$18,000 General Reception
Desk duties (staffed until noon)
$ 6,000 Office and
copier/printer supplies (behavioral change for all staff)
Police Program Reductions
$20,000 Admin staff
restructure
$37,180 Reduced Community
Relations Coordinator
$ 9,800 Community
Relations programs and supplies
$73,000 Reduced fleet
(net)
$ 2,000 Police Explorer
program
$ 3,700 Employee
conferences, training and recognition
$38,075 Supplies and
equipment
$ 1,900 Lake Patrol
(elimination)
Fire Department
$ 5 0,000 Department
reorganization (net)
$100,000 Fire Relief Pension
Building Maintenance
$28,000 Reduced
energy usage, light maintenance (temperature variations at City Hall and Public
Works building; light maintenance deferred
Street Lighting
$5,000 Reduction
in maintenance and light repair (e.g. street lights out longer than citizens
are accustomed to)
Streets and Pathways Program
Reductions
$55,000 Reduced staffing
position
$57,000 Pathway, parking
lot, streetscape maintenance
Residential leaf pickup program
eliminated (not applicable for direct savings to the General Fund, but longer
term benefits realized for avoiding purchase of equipment and freeing staff
hours for other tasks)
Mayor Roe clarified, and City
Manager Malinen confirmed, that elimination of the leaf pick up program would
not eliminate standard storm sewer maintenance. Mayor Roe also clarified that
the City would still need equipment and staff for its storm water management,
with City Manager Malinen responding affirmatively.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
pathway maintenance seemed to be a big issue with residents, noting that it
ranked #1 on the recent Parks and Recreation survey; in addition to the number
of contacts she received related to pathway maintenance during the winter
months. Councilmember McGehee questioned if staff was referring to maintenance
in terms of pavement management or plowing or both.
Mr. Miller responded that it was a
portion of both.
City Manager Malinen noted that,
in City Council ranking of programs, pathway maintenance did not rank as high
as in recent surveys.
Mayor Roe noted that there was an
opportunity throughout this budget process to revisit City Council rankings;
and if the City Council determined they couldn’t reduce or eliminate those
programs, either other programs would need to be cut, or the levy would need to
be increased accordingly.
Parks and Recreation Program
Reductions
$80,000 Program Coordinator
position
$ 8,500 Temporary wages
$ 9,900 Summer
entertainment
$ 900 Spring
celebration
$ 8,200 July 4th
celebration
$ 750 Halloween
$ 6,850 Rosefest
$16,650 Rosefest Parade
Mayor Roe clarified that, related
to elimination of a Program Coordinator position, there would not be staffing
to continue the programs listed; and if the programs were retained, another
position would need to be addressed.
Mr. Miller advised that, with the
structural reform and budget, the City couldn’t continue the programs and
services status quo. Mr. Miller deferred to Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke on personnel issues; opining that he didn’t think any one person
was being considered.
City Manager Malinen advised that
the driving rationale for these recommendations were that these events are very
time-intensive for a singular event as opposed to year-round programs; and
these created a spike in resources for staff. Even if other programs were
eliminated, Mr. Malinen advised that these labor-intensive programs would
remain a concern.
Councilmember Willmus reiterated
his frustration with a priority-based budget in that it didn’t provide an
actual true picture of items being considered; such as other duties of a
Program Coordinator position; and impacts to other items that may not be
evident. Related to the $60,000 reduction in park program, Councilmember
Willmus sought more detail on what programs would be impacted (e.g. ice rinks,
skating lessons); and reiterated his frustrations with program-based
budgeting. Councilmember Willmus opined that, at some point, transparency
needed to be evident as the program continued; and the public needed to be
aware of specific items on the table and across the board.
Mayor Roe opined that it was his
understanding that further program details were in process at the staff level;
and noted that, based on his budget calendar, his original intent had been to
have that detail available before the August 8, 2011 public comment
opportunity; while also having anticipated more dialogue between the City
Council and Department Heads prior to public comment, that would have addressed
those specifics and potential impacts. Mayor Roe noted that the concept
schedule he’d developed had provided for those opportunities at the July 18 and
July 25, 2011 meetings; and expressed his disappointment that those discussions
had yet to be held.
Councilmember Johnson opined that,
if these recommendations were based on the proposed CIP Task Force
recommendation for a 2% shift from operating to capital, it had not been his
personal intent for the proposed items that would take away the face of the
community itself; and would require more important decision-making than done
to-date. Councilmember Johnson further opined that, if this was based on the
chart developed by City Manager Malinen or the Department Managers in
attendance at tonight’s meeting, it only served to kick dirt in the face of the
City Council and the community; and needed to be reviewed again and some tough
decisions made. Councilmember Johnson opined that these recommendations would
not serve the good in marketing this community and were absurd and caused him
great disappointment.
Mayor Roe noted that staff had
additional program divisions to address.
Park Improvement Program
Reductions
$140,000 Bond-issue
funded – Parks Master Plan process
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he shared the sentiments of Councilmember Johnson; and when looking through
budget documents received previously during this process, he had seen a lot of
departments being hit. However, in his review of the Community Survey and
Communications areas, he found increased funding for the City’s newsletter, an
item that had ranked well below recreational programs in the City; and
questioned that logic. Councilmember Willmus concurred completely with
Councilmember Johnson in the need to look at different ways to do things, but
to now step back and revisit what we’re doing and where we want to go.
Councilmember Pust asked staff to
provide Councilmembers with copies of the slides presented tonight, since they
were not included in agenda packet materials.
Councilmember Pust noted the RCA
references to an approximate 5% increase in employee health care premiums; and
questioned how that percentage was formulated and what percentage the City paid
for their employees.
Mr. Miller estimated that the City
paid approximately 70-80% of the total employee premium for health care costs.
Discussion ensued related to
single and family or tiers for that coverage and the City’s intent to pick up
any health care premium costs up to 5%.
Councilmember Pust opined that the
City’s employees deserved everything that the City could provide; however, she
questioned that benefit program compared to today’s current market place and
100% employer-paid benefits; and expressed her preference to receive dollar
amounts for salaries and benefits and projections for 2012 and 2013.
Councilmember Johnson, to that
point, questioned how requirements were addressed for minimum employer
contributions between public and private entities.
Mayor Roe concurred with the
points made by Councilmember Pust related to total health care costs.
Mr. Miller clarified that the
worst case scenario would be for the City to need to pick up an additional
$100,000 at 5% for employee health care costs.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
the level of detail proposed by staff in the future.
Mr. Miller advised that it would
be broken down in four (4) categories: personnel costs; supplies/materials;
professional services; and capital items.
Councilmember Willmus advised that
he continued to grapple with the proposed shift from operations and whether
there would eventually be a need for City Council review of a line-item budget.
Mayor Roe stressed the importance
to continue in the current process; and his assurances that it would work out
when the City Council received the information being requested from staff.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the details would be provided in a timely manner or if it would be too late
in the process for the City Council to make significant adjustments.
Mayor Roe opined that it wouldn’t
be fair to staff to shift gears in the middle of the process; but again
expressed his confidence that refinement of the priority-based system would
continue to evolve as the process continued. Mayor Roe noted that the Council
majority agreed on the preferred level of detail for decision-making for
program-based budgeting; however, he recognized that it didn’t necessarily mean
that additional information may not be needed as the process continued. Mayor
Roe advised that this had been his rationale in establishing the two (2)
opportunities for Council discussion with Department Heads to delve in to those
issues and determine impacts of proposed reductions; then to go forward for
public comment to keep everyone informed throughout the process. Mayor Roe
reiterated his disappointment in where they were at in the process at this
time.
Councilmember Johnson concurred
with Mayor Roe in the unfairness of asking staff to delve into an alternative
budget process at this time. Councilmember Johnson opined that what made this
more complicated than previous years, was the added CIP component; however, he
further opined that it definitely wrapped the whole budgeting picture
together. Councilmember Johnson advised that he was seeing this year’s budget
process much more comprehensively than in the last three (3) years; and
recognizing that difficult decisions were needed. Councilmember Johnson
expressed his appreciation to Department Heads and the City Council for their
efforts to-date. Councilmember Johnson asked that the City not abandon what
had been accomplished so far by going into another type of budget scenario that
would negate what had been accomplished. Councilmember Johnson expressed
confidence that Councilmember Willmus would be able to get the information he
needed with one-on-one discussions with Department Heads; with the issues all
having surfaced now.
Councilmember Willmus expressed
concern, from the perspective of having access to that information, how it will
be disseminated to the public, especially when he couldn’t determine what made
up the numbers presented in the slides tonight. Councilmember Willmus
reiterated the need to raise transparency; and getting the numbers form
Department Heads to the public. Councilmember Willmus noted that this would
not change the CIP or the exercises to-date; but would provide a more open and
transparent process for the community.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
there was frustration on the part of the City Council and citizens he’d talked
to on the budget, in how the numbers keep changing. However, Councilmember
Johnson noted that City Manager Malinen had explained that tonight through
staff reacting to the CIP proposal and need to keep numbers fluid for staff to
react to redirecting funds from operating to CIP. Councilmember Johnson
reminded all that this was the first attempt to make structural changes to the
City budget to this degree.
Mayor Roe noted that the numbers
for the approximate 200 programs still needed to be broken out into the four
(4) categories outlined by Mr. Miller; and expressed confidence that the next
step in the process would fill in a lot of those numbers. However, he reiterated
his concern that those details had not been available by July 11, 2011 as
previously anticipated. Going forward in future years, Mayor Roe expressed
confidence that the process would continue to improve.
Councilmember Pust expressed her
interest in this year’s documents providing comparable year information, not
just this year’s information. Councilmember Pust expressed her preference for
two years back and two years forward to provide a long-term picture.
Mr. Miller clarified that there
would be no historical cost of 2011 programs; as staff didn’t track costs in
the same way they presented the budget program. Mr. Miller advised that the
City Council would receive a historical account per program for 2011, 2012 and
2013; but not line item budget costs, only through the historical tracking by
department. Mr. Miller advised that it would be a monumental task for staff to
track anything beyond current tracking for the 200 programs. Mr. Miller
advised that the percentage allocations were based on the time-spent process
completed by staff, with some manual corrections as needed; but that it
provided a one-time calculation, with indexing for increased personnel and
supply costs, that should remain fairly accurate on an annual basis as those
categories remain costed out. However, Mr. Miller reiterated that the costs
were not tracked on a more minute level of detail.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Miller clarified that the City changed programs in 2011, department
by department and based on the four categories summarized for each department,
compiled in one report based on the current priority-based budget process. Mr.
Miller noted that there would be one report for tax-supported and one for
non-tax-supported budgets.
Councilmember McGehee suggested a
new software program or revising the existing program to provide the level of
detail requested of Councilmembers Willmus and Pust.
Mr. Miller noted the significant
cost and staff hours involved, and changes for staff responsible to check and record
receipts to accommodate cost tracking. Mr. Miller advised that the City had
not followed such a procedure for twelve (12) years. In response to
Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller clarified that the format of the software was
for accounting purposes, not budget purposes; and advised that changes as
suggested by Councilmember McGehee would take the rest of the year just to plan
out; in addition to the educational need for about thirty (30) different people
accountable for tracking and recording receipts to be retrained.
Mayor Roe noted completion of the
time spent study in lieu of the other method as recommended by Councilmember
McGehee.
Mr. Miller advised that, when a
previous City Council made the designation, there was no nexus for how funds
should be allocated for outcomes, other than to take the previous budget and
add a percentage above it, providing not rationale for resource allocations
that were desired. When cutting budgets, Mr. Miller noted that staff simply
used a formulaic approach as opposed to looking at programs and funding those
that mattered the most and reducing those not mattering the most.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
she didn’t’ feel that dirt had been kicked in their faces; and would be happy
when she had those 200 items; and didn’t need to know what happened last year
for her decision-making. Councilmember McGehee advised that her priorities
were to add to the reserve budget to maintain streets and other infrastructure
needs, to fund public safety needs, and to maintain parks and keep them clean
and maintained. In order to do that, Councilmember McGehee noted the possible
need to increase property taxes.
Councilmember Pust clarified that
she had yet to vote on any of the recommendations.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
she didn’t think it was that bad; and encouraged public comment following
tonight’s slide presentation; and to hear their perspective on transparency
concerns.
Mayor Roe requested clarification
on some technical issues related to the $336,375 detailed in the RCA being
removed in one-time funding for various equipment replacements as well as set
aside funds for potential Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) mitigation. Mayor Roe
questioned including the equipment expenditure when all that was decreased was
for the EAB, excluding the $236,000 for equipment, not operating costs; and his
preference to see 2012 and 2013 numbers more specifically reflect that.
Concurring with Councilmember Pust’s observation, Mayor Roe noted that this
would create a lower percent decrease, and was not what the CIP Task Force had
recommended.
Councilmember Willmus concurred;
opining that this was just one example of his concerns in being unable to
address highlights without the experience of Mayor Roe from his participation
in and knowledge of last year’s budget discussions.
Mayor Roe further suggested that
the capital budget table (page 2 of the RCA) amounts be added to from the
additional levy funding for operating; and that the summary (bench handout)
provide the capital budget for 2012 and 2013 respectively.
Councilmembers McGehee and Johnson
concurred.
Mr. Miller reviewed the intent of
the RCA; and clarified that the CIP Task Force had directed a budget reduction
of 2%, not 3.8%, that was addressing tools and smaller equipment not capitalized
and previously in the operating budget in 2011.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Miller clarified that the City had spent or would spend $236,000 in
2011 as appropriated and it needed to be reflected one time; but would not be
built into the base going forward.
Mayor Roe noted that his point was
that he remembered that many of those items were CIP items for 2011, not
operating items.
Mr. Miller noted that not all CIP
was funded through the levy.
Mayor Roe requested a list of
those items not operating items but showing up in department budgets; and to
provide consistency annually.
Councilmember Johnson
philosophically questioned if CIP items would then needed to be paid out of
reserves or if there was adequate funding in the CIP moving forward.
Mr. Miller advised, theoretically
that the CIP should be sustainable in the current year; however, that was not
the case and rationale for those items appearing in the operating fund. Mr.
Miller noted, however, that an entirely different approach was being used for
2012 and 2013.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
it should then be a wash, with no mechanism provided in 2011, but mechanisms
created moving forward.
Councilmember Pust concurred with
Mr. Miller’s explanation and rationale on this issue.
Councilmember Pust reminded Mr.
Miller of her need of the spreadsheets from the July 11, 2011 meeting that she
had been unable to attend.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller clarified that the spreadsheets were accurate using a formulaic approach
by department but distribution within those division was not yet accurate, but
was being revised by staff and in process.
Councilmember Willmus requested
that bench handouts and other budget documents be dated for easier reference.
Mayor Roe asked that the detail
documents be made available to the City Council before the August 8, 2011
meeting packet.
Mr. Miller advised that he would
provide all due diligence for his portion of the documents.
Mayor Roe asked for sufficient
time in the August 8, 2011 agenda for discussion among Councilmembers and
Department Heads, as well as for public comment.
Councilmember Johnson respectfully
requested that budget discussions not continue at the end of agendas;
expressing his preference for discussing budget items when he was fresher.
Mayor Roe concurred; and asked
that the documents be placed on the web, with a designated budget-dedicated
page for easy access by the public. Mayor Roe also asked that staff provide as
much public notice through various media sources as possible of the August 8,
2011 meeting to receive public comment on the budget.
b.
Discuss Draft Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon provided an update based on direction from the City Council at
their May 23, 2011 meeting; with those revisions detailed in the RCA dated July
25, 2011. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the revisions had been drafted in
ordinance format for City Council review, with the main issue from that
previous meeting addressed in Section 2.3 of page 1 of the RCA. Mr. Trudgeon
noted that the ordinance was scheduled for a Public Hearing at the August 3,
2011 Planning Commission meeting.
Councilmember Willmus noted that,
when he first brought his concerns forward, it was not his intent and he wouldn’t
have a problem allowing ADU’s in LDR-1 Districts regardless of lot size; and
overall supported this direction.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
concern with identifying ADU’s, with Mr. Trudgeon advising that “B” indicated
detached, with “A” indicating attached units, that should serve to facilitate
emergency response needs. Councilmember McGehee expressed further concern
regarding the limited setbacks and potential clearance of snow form one
property to a neighboring property; as well as height issues for rear yards
when an additional story could be added that may impact a neighboring property.
Mayor Roe concurred that rear and
side yard setbacks needed further review by staff.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the
addresses would simply be “XXXX-A” or “XXXX-B) for postal service and emergency
response clarity. Mayor Roe suggested ordinance language be clarified
accordingly.
For the benefit of Councilmembers
and the public, Mayor Roe summarized his previous conversations with Mr.
Trudgeon related to permit requirements for this use, similar to an annual
rental permit with requirements for revocation, etc.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that the
intent was to allow notification of surrounding neighbors and get the ADU
information into the City’s database through the registration process. Mr.
Trudgeon reviewed the benefits for the City in this registration requirement
versus a Conditional Use application with no notice requirements and continuing
to run with the land. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this provided for any new owner
to come forward at the point of sale to address any issues or concerns, and to
provide notice to the neighbors for their input.
Councilmember Willmus noted the
huge difference and added benefits to the City for this proposed ADU process
versus that for Conditional Uses; with the ADU permit process requiring the new
property owner to register the ADU at point-of-sale rather than the CU process
going with the land.
Councilmember McGehee sought
clarification from Mr. Trudgeon on the appeal process; and Mayor Roe suggested
that staff add the appeal process language to the propped ordinance.
17.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember Willmus sought
assurances that the City Council would have sufficient background information
provided on the requested court citation action scheduled for the August 8,
2011 meeting.
Mayor Roe and Councilmember Pust
concurred that a history be provided by staff of enforcement actions to-date
for the property.
18.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16. Adjourn
Willmus moved, Roe seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:50 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Pust; Willmus;
McGehee; Johnson; and Roe.
Nays: None.