View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

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.



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.




·         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


63321 – 63397





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:



Type of License

Juut Salonspa; 1641 County Road C

Massage Therapy


Stephen’s Hair Salon; 1125 West County Road B

Massage Therapy



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:






Access Communications

Internet Access Switches





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 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.