City
Council Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2012
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 April: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present. Councilmember Pust
arrived at approximately 6:10 pm.
2. Approve Agenda
Staff advised that Business Item
12.b entitled “Consider Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1770
Stanbridge” be removed as it had been resolved earlier today.
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Agenda items 7. g, h, i, and j, respectively entitled,
“Approve a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice
Creek Watershed District for the 2012 Pavement Management Project;” “Approve a
Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek
Watershed District for the 2007 Pavement Management Project;” Approve Affinity
Plus Encroachment Agreement;” and “Consider an Extension of the Time Limit to
Make a Decision Regarding the Citizen Petition for an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the Proposed Wal-Mart Store at County Road C and Cleveland
Avenue.”
Mayor Roe announced a Closed
Executive Session immediately following tonight’s interview for the purpose of
discussion of litigation subject to attorney/client privilege.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Interview Applicants for Police Civil Service
Commission
Councilmembers interviewed Mr. Brad
Vandervegt for a vacancy on the Police Civil Service Commission.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, to
appoint Brad Vandervegt to the vacancy on the Police Civil Service Commission
for a term ending March 31, 2015.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and
Roe.
Nays: None.
Closed Executive Session
City Attorney Mark Gaughan noted
that under State Statute, Section 13.D, a meeting may be closed to discuss
litigation strategy. Mr. Gaughan advised that the discussion would be related
to litigation regarding bond issuance and results of a Court of Appeals
decision earlier today.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
moving into Closed Executive Session at 6:15 p.m., under State Statute, Section
13.D, for the purpose of discussing litigation strategy regarding the City’s
issuance of bonds through its Port Authority powers, and results of a Court of
Appeals decision earlier today.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and
Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe convened the Roseville
City Council in closed executive session at approximately 6:18 pm. City
Attorney Mark Gaughan, Bond Counsel Scott Knudson, City Manager Malinen, and
Finance Director Miller were also present.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded
adjourning the closed executive session at approximately 6:48 pm and returning
to open session.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and
Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe reconvened the City
Council meeting in regular session at 6:54 p.m.; advising that the purpose of
the Closed Executive Session was to discuss strategy for pending litigation
between the City of Roseville v. Responsive Governance for Roseville.
For the benefit of the audience,
Mayor Roe announced that a petition requesting an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) had been filed on Monday, April 16, 2012; and that this would
create a delay in the City Council’s consideration of plat approval for the
proposed Wal-Mart development until the EAW had been addressed. Until that
time, Mayor Roe advised that the City Council would not take that issue up; and
noted that the City Council, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) had up
to thirty (30) days to determine the validity of the petition; and anticipated
that the City Council may have the issue before it at one of their May
meetings. However, Mayor Roe advised that the normal means of communication
would be used to keep the public alert to the situation.
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, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Roe announced Roseville’s
semi-annual clean-up day scheduled for Saturday, April 28, 2012; with material
drop off at the Central Park entrance off Dale Street from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm.
City Manager Malinen, assisted by
Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt, the recently-held Earth Day event held at the
Harriet Alexander Nature Center (HANC) continuing as a “zero waste” event for
the firth year. Mr. Pratt noted that this year held the lowest waste generated
for any event serving food, with only 5.5% of the materials being waste, or 2
lbs., 14 oz. collected from trash, with several hundred people attending.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember
Johnson had left the meeting briefly due to health issues; but anticipated
returning shortly.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a.
Proclaim May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
Mayor Roe read a proclamation
recognizing the accomplishments and contributions of Asian Pacific Americans,
and celebrating the inclusion of all people in building a better future for the
citizens of Roseville, MN.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
proclaiming May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in the City of
Roseville.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Proclaim Police Week and May 15, 2012 as Peace Officers’ Memorial
Day
Mayor Roe read a proclamation
declaring the week of May 13 to 19, 2012, as National Police Week in the City
of Roseville; commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, who by
their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities, have rendered a
dedicated service to their communities and have established for themselves an
enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all
citizens. The Proclamation further declared May 15, 2012 as Peace officers’
Memorial Day in honor of law enforcement officers who, through their courageous
deeds, have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community, or have
become disabled in the performance of duty, and recognizing and paying respect
to the survivors of our fallen heroes.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
proclaiming Police Week, and May 15, 2012, as Peace Officer’s Memorial Day in
the City of Roseville.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee;
Willmus; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of April 16, 2012 Meeting
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the April 16, 2012 meeting as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
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, Willmus seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$261,372.73
|
|
65962 – 66056
|
356,579.15
|
|
Total
|
$617,951.88
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business and Other Licenses
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of license applications for the following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of License
|
|
Bodyflow Massage, LLC; 2819 Hamline Avenue N
Suite 112
|
Massage Therapy
Establishment
|
|
Xay May Khaoone, at Bodyflow Massage, LLC
|
Massage Therapist
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented
in detail on the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated April 23, 2012.
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Description
|
Amount
|
|
Streets
|
Upper Cut Tree Service
|
Blanket P. O. for tree removal from boulevards and City
rights-of-way
|
$25,000.00
|
|
P & R
|
Upper Cut Tree Service
|
Blanket P. O. for tree removal in City parks
|
15,000.00
|
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Receive Imagine Roseville 2025 update
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt
of the quarterly staff update of Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long
Term Goals as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Receive Shared Services Report
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt
of the quarterly staff update of shared services as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Receive Grant Application Report
Mayor Roe noted a change and
potential formatting error for this report since December of 2009 and June of
2010 with the “City Council Approval” the same column used for “Approval Date;”
and suggested staff review for future presentations.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, receipt
of the quarterly staff update of grant applications as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
g. Approve
a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek
Watershed District for the 2012 Pavement Management Project (PMP)
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action dated April 23, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee requested
clarification for this item, as well as the next item, on whether the agreement
ran with the land. Councilmember McGehee further questioned if agreements were
in place between the City and citizens who were encouraged to develop rain
gardens, especially if they were in City rights-of-way and whether they were
aware of those stipulations.
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz advised that, when such facilities were constructed, whether requested
by a property owner or a joint venture between them and the City, and if on
private property, a five (5) year agreement was one of the requirements. While
such facilities are sometimes constructed on private property, Mr. Schwartz
noted that both of these facilities were on public property.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her concern with liability for the private property owner versus the City in
perpetuity for maintenance; and questioned what happened at the end of the five
(5) year agreement, since most required ongoing maintenance.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
overall goal was to improve water quality; and noted that the City continued to
oversee maintenance of such facilities; and he only foresaw a private property
owner taking over maintenance responsibility if the City vacated the
right-of-way.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the Maintenance Agreement (Attachment A) for stormwater management
facilities between Rice Creek Watershed District and the City of Roseville for
the 2012 Pavement Management Project.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
h. Approve
a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek
Watershed District for the 2007 Pavement Management Project (PMP)
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the Maintenance Agreement (Attachment A) for stormwater management
facilities between Rice Creek Watershed District and the City of Roseville for
the 2007 Pavement Management Project.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
i. Approve Affinity Plus Credit
Union Encroachment Agreement
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action dated April 23, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee referenced
Attachment A to the report; and questioned the location of this encroachment.
Using the site plan, Public Works
Director Schwartz clarified the location of the easement over a portion of
existing sanitary and storm sewer running the length of the property adjacent
to the north property line; both located approximately ten feet (10’) apart;
and proposed to be located partially under their parking lot as well as under a
portion of their drive-through canopy.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
if there was the possibility in the future that City would need to dig remove
any portion of the Affinity parking lot or a portion of the retaining wall.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this was
always a possibility, as with any easement. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that
current technologies provided for options for pipe repair beyond digging them
up; and thus language included in the Agreement for the property owner to
assume cost-share responsibilities under the terms of this agreement. Mr.
Schwartz noted that the Agreement had been drafted, and reviewed, by the City
Attorney to ensure that the language covered any liability for the City.
Councilmember Johnson returned to the meeting at
approximately 7:15 p.m.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the Affinity Plus Credit Union Encroachment Agreement (Attachment
A).
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
j. Consider
an Extension to the Time Limit to Make a Decision Regarding the Citizen
Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Proposed Wal-Mart
Store at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Request for
Council Action dated April 23, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee sought
assurances that the plat currently before the City Council was associated with
the Wal-Mart project as one complete unit, and that there was nothing else
hanging out there.
City Attorney Gaughan advised
that, under Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), as the
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) – in this case the City of Roseville – was
prohibited from taking any action on preliminary plats pending petition review.
Mayor Roe clarified that the
original action coming before the City Council had been consideration of the
Preliminary and Final Plat for the Wal-Mart development project.
McGehee moved, Pust seconded,
granting the City of Roseville, as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU)
pertaining to the citizens’ petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the proposed Wal-Mart store at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue, an
additional fifteen (15) business days to decide whether the requested EAW is to
be required.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
12.
General Ordinances for Adoption
13.
Presentations
a.
Accept 2011 Audit Report and Financial Statements
Finance Director Chris Miller
introduced Mr. Matt Mayer from the firm of Kern, DeWenter, Viere (KDV) to
provide an overview of the 2011 Annual Financial Report, as well as the audit
process itself and any required disclosure and/or findings.
Materials referenced included: Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011; Reports on
Compliance with Government Auditing Standards OMB Circular A-133 Single Audit
and Legal Compliance for and Management Letter for the year ended December 31,
2011. For the benefit of the audience and the listening public, Mr. Mayer advised
that discussion items from the report would be displayed as a Power Point.
Mr. Mayer acknowledged Finance
Director Chris Miller and Assistant Finance Director Brenda Davitt for their
assistance before, during and after the annual audit. Mr. Mayer reviewed Audit
Findings and Recommendations regarding financial controls; including Prior
Period Adjustments and Current Year Legal Compliance Findings.
Councilmember Pust sought
clarification, with Mr. Mayer and Mr. Miller responding, regarding budgeted
versus actual expenditures in the General Fund and a reasonable variance range
of 2-4% on the conservative side, with the City of Roseville’s range at
approximately 4% over on the revenue side and 5% under on the expense side; and
how those contingencies compared to the City’s Fund Balance Policy.
Mr. Mayer noted that, based on
recommendations of the State Auditor’s Office, best practices for reserves was
between 35-50%, this contingency was advised due to the most significant stream
received through property tax levies, with that first settlement in June,
causing municipalities to use up their reserves within the first six (6) months
of a year; and requiring a fund balance sufficient to stand on its own.
Councilmember Pust noted that the
City’s reserves seemed to be high at 51%.
Mr. Mayer clarified that the
City’s actual liquid or discretionary position overall was approximately 43%
(referenced on Page 28 of the Comprehensive Financial Statement) with a total
fund balance at $6.2 million, and incorporating some legally restricted funds
of $5.91 million and the remainder unassigned fund balances.
Mr. Miller noted that the City’s
current fund balance policy was 45%; however, he noted that contractual
services to other cities were included in the General Fund and those dollars
were set aside for those services to accommodate fluctuations from year to
year.
Councilmember Pust questioned if
those dollars took into consideration any of those contracts going away (e.g.
City of Arden Hills Engineering services); with Mr. Miller clarifying that the
contract was still in place; and that any accumulation of surplus funds would
be assigned to engineering services allowing latitude for contracts with other
communities and those fluctuations.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust on how much the City contracted out on an annual basis, Mr. Miller and Mr.
Schwartz responded that the amount was approximately $350,000, and that the
City currently had double that.
Noting that the $500,000 that was referenced
by Councilmember Pust was carried forward based on City Council actions in
2011, Mayor Roe suggested that there was a cut from the 2011 to 2012 budgets of
the $, $700,000 - $800,000 added to the Capital Improvement Program, with Mr.
Miller concurring and not anticipating any surplus for 2012.
Councilmember Johnson sought
further detail on the HRA finding regarding balances.
Mr. Mayer referenced Page 3 of the
Management Letter and recommended adjustments to the fund carrying significant
notes for receivable balances for low-cost housing, with the HRA the loaner of
those funds and collecting those receivables. Mr. Mayer clarified that the
finding found balances overstated and the dollars were written down; with some
dollars from Ramsey County for federal dollars to utilize or spend down, or
returned to Ramsey County. Mr. Mayer advised that Ramsey County was allowing
those dollars to stay with the HRA mission, with no obligation to repay them,
and releasing their liability from that fund as well.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
if this was a bookkeeping or interpretation error.
Mr. Mayer responded that one was a
bookkeeping error, and the other one of interpretation. In the HRA context,
Mr. Mayer advised that ultimately these were receivables that may or may not be
forgiven; and that the audit’s intent was to ensure that all assumptions were
correctly made.
Regarding the Solid Waste
Recycling Fund, Councilmember Willmus noted that this report, rather than those
prior to 2011, provided a more detailed breakdown; with Mr. Mayer noting that
this was based on the City’s Revenue Sharing Agreement with Eureka Recycling.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
acceptance of the 2011 Annual Financial Report as presented.
Mayor Roe and Councilmembers
thanked Finance Director Miller for the good job overseeing City finances.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
the availability of the audit reports for the public on-line; with Mr. Miller
advising that, now that they were presented to and approved by the City Council,
staff would post them in the Finance portion of the website this week.
Councilmember McGehee praised Mr.
Miller and his staff for the excellent report from the auditor.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
City Manager Malinen thanked all
of the City’s Department Heads and their employees for the good results and the
team effort on the part of the entire team and their excellent management of
those resources at their disposal.
Mayor Roe concurred; noting the
past few difficult years and the achievements and responsible governance based
in part on the due diligence of staff.
b.
Receive Green Step Cities Presentation
Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt
introduced Ms. Diana McKeown from the Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERT) to
provide an overview of the Green Step Cities Program; as well as Ms. Lindsay
Van Patten (Roseville resident) and Ms. Kiley Friedrich, U of MN students
performing best practices research with City staff as part of their class
project to help Roseville become a Green Step City.
The presentation was included in
the meeting materials and displayed via Power Point; and an Implementation
Checklist was provided to the City Council and Mr. Malinen as a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the
students for their great presentation and poise during that presentation.
Councilmember Willmus thanked the
students for their presentation, and recognizing that the Public Works,
Environment and Transportation Commission Chair, Jim DeBenedet, was present at
tonight’s meeting, asked for his perception of where the City was at in this
process.
Jim DeBenedet, Chair, PWET
Commission, advised that the Commission had recommended to the City Council
proceeding with the Green Step Cities Program with the understanding that there
were a number of steps that could be taken under the green category. Chair
DeBenedet noted specifically the PWET Commission’s current review of transition
to LED street lighting as an immediate consideration, in addition to other
items that fit with the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as referenced
by the students.
As to whether the PWET Commission
was still actively working on the program, Mr. DeBenedet responded to
Councilmember Willmus that the PWET Commission has passed off the initiative to
the appropriate staff to coordinate efforts under the broader direction of the
City Council.
Councilmember McGehee thanked
students for their presentation; and questioned which items they found from the
checklist that have already been completed by the City.
Students reviewed the various
categories and best management practices outlined in the Checklist as provided
as a bench handout; and their recommendations for other initiatives, including
the State of MN B-3 Program to benchmark energy use in public buildings.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, students addressed the Complete Street Program, recognizing that the City
didn’t have jurisdiction over all roadways in the cities; and advantages of
more aggressively pursuing green steps.
Councilmember Pust suggested that
this presentation be provided to the HRA as well, since it fit well with the
Living Smarter in Roseville and sustainability efforts being promoted by the
HRA.
Mayor Roe congratulated the
students on their presentation; and their upcoming graduation.
Due to illness, Recording Secretary Sheila Stowell left the
meeting at this time, approximately 8:10 p.m., with the remainder of the
meeting transcribed at a later date via DVD.
c.
Receive Update on Civic Engagement Task Force
Human Rights Commission Chair Gary
Grefenberg introduced other members of the Civic Engagement Task Force, noting
that several of its seventeen (17) members are members of City Council advisory
commissions, as well as some at-large members of the community. Mr. Grefenberg
briefly summarized the expertise they brought to the table in assisting efforts
and providing suggestions to increase civic engagement among Roseville residents.
Members involved in the Task Force were listed on Attachment A to the report
dated April 23, 2012.
Members present for tonight’s presentation
included Kathy Fischer Ramundt, Jim Lewis, Jim DeBenedet, and Peter Strohmeier.
Mr. Grefenberg provided copies of the Task Force’s draft report to City Council
members as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Grefenberg reviewed the charge
to the Task Force defined by the City’s Human Rights Commission; and noted that
the work remained in progress with two major work groups of the task force currently
operating: Assessment of Civic Engagement Practices Work Group and the
Neighborhood Work Group. Mr. Grefenberg displayed recommendations to-date of
the Task Force and its work groups, as detailed in the bench handout, noting
that he had authored the draft report based on discussions held to-date. While
reviewing various media options to maintain and/or improve communications for
citizens, Mr. Grefenberg advised that the Task Force strongly supported neighborhood
networks, and neighborhood and community activists; and supported using the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan process be used as a model, as well as past
policies providing for community engagement.
Mayor Roe clarified that this draft
was a product of the entire group; however, he suggested that it didn’t make
sense to adopt the report at this time without seeking public input on the
draft report.
Councilmember Willmus thanked the
Task Force for their presentation; and sought clarification on the remaining
expectations and timeframe for the Task Force to develop their formal report to
the City Council; and whether that required additional review and revision at
the Task Force and/or Human Rights Commission level; and their anticipated
process for presentation to the City Council in final draft.
Mr. Grefenberg advised that the
Task Force identified an additional six (6) weeks for their work to be
completed, at which time it would be presented to the entire Human Rights Commission
for their review and comment, anticipating that those comments of the Human
Rights Commission would provide for additions, not for a substitute opinion,
since three (3) of the seven (7) Commissioners served on the Task Force. After
that review, Mr. Grefenberg anticipated a final report to the City Council,
with a work plan and recommendation for an additional public hearing once the
City Council reviewed the details of the full report.
Mr. Grefenberg advised that the
Task Force was seeking support from staff and the City Council in promoting the
recommendations and organizing a community forum to solicit additional public
comment. Mr. Grefenberg advised that the Task Force was also seeking someone
to take meeting minutes of the Task Force for their next and final two (2)
meetings, as they reviewed changes and developed a progress report in more
detail.
Councilmember Willmus sought
additional information as to whether this community engagement was seen as an
ongoing effort of the Task Force and/or the Human Rights Commission; or once
the final document was presented to the City Council, it would be up to the
City Council, or designation of them to another advisory commission or
appointed body for ongoing review and implementation strategies.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the
Task Force for their report; noting his previously-expressed frustration in not
having an update on their progress to-date. Councilmember Johnson expressed
his favorable impression of the broad and diverse citizenry serving on the Task
Force; and offered his continued support for better communication between local
government and the community; whether through use of the Parks Master Plan
constellations or neighborhood groups. Councilmember Johnson advised that he
still encountered frustration among citizens regarding current communication
problems.
Mr. Grefenberg noted,
unfortunately, that the community forum had not been well-attended; but
concurred that there remained citizens who didn’t feel they were receiving
adequate information, whether through written and/or electronic means. Mr.
Grefenberg advised that some comments included the out-of-date nature of news
in the City newsletter, City News, as well as their difficulty navigating
the City’s website. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the City of Edina as a
communication model, using a citizen engagement blog, and suggested other technological
advances that could make communication more accessible. Mr. Grefenberg advised
that it was the preference of a major segment of citizens that they preferred
to tell their government what to do in a collaborative manner than the other
way around.
Councilmember Pust opined that
this discussion proved the point of the need for more dialogue; however, she
noted her need to have an opportunity to review the handouts prior offering
more detailed and informed comments. Councilmember Pust suggested discussion
at a future City Council work session with the Task Force, not just its
Chairperson. Councilmember Pust advised that one of her questions remained in
how best to be accountable and know that communication efforts had been
improved or were improving; and not just assuming that those not heard from
were happy or uninterested; or whether the vocal minority attending City
Council meetings or frequently e-mailing Councilmembers was representative of
the entire citizenry. Councilmember Pust sought additional information on how
best to measure communication efforts and how to keep accountable going forward.
On a personal note, Mr. Grefenberg
used his neighborhood in SW Roseville and perceptions of the lack of
communication or interest of City Planning staff based on past experience.
Upon meeting with Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd, Mr. Grefenberg noted that
there was enlightenment that those perceptions had changed and were recognized
as paranoia on the part of neighborhood groups and noting that staff was
unaware that some items may be found controversial by the public, but there was
not ulterior motive by staff to withhold information. Mr. Grefenberg opined
that the meeting was constructive and perceptions much more clear.
Councilmember McGehee thanked the
Task Force for their presentation; and noted that the City Council – and
therefore the public – could be kept better informed through the periodic staff
reports included quarterly in meeting packets; however, she concurred with
Councilmember Pust that an ongoing accountability measure was needed.
Councilmember McGehee also concurred with Mr. Grefenberg’s comments on the
failures of current and electronic efforts for communication; and the need for
them to be more current. To-date, Councilmember McGehee opined that she was
personally encouraged by the work of the Task Force.
Mayor Roe thanked the Task Force
for their long overdue report; and expressed his interest in its next
presentation as the process moves forward. At the request of Mr. Grefenberg on
staff assistance for the Task Force’s remaining work, Mayor Roe advised that
City Manager Malinen would follow-through with him on that.
14.
Public Hearings
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Authorize Bids for Fire Station Project Bid Package #2
Fire Chief O’Neill and members of
the Project Team were present to seek formal City Council authorization to
proceed with Bid Package #2 as previously discussed.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee
on whether the City Council would see a bid package for furniture and/or
technology items in the future, Chief O’Neill advised that it would be handled
through separate action(s) as appropriate, but not formally bid; and would
remain within the $8 million budget allotment.
Willmus moved, Pust seconded,
authorizing the bid related to work performed as described in Bid Package #2,
consisting of all interior and exterior work not previously included in Bid
Package #1, with the exclusion of owner furniture and fixture budget and
technology budget items; and as detailed in the RCA dated April 23, 2012.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus;
Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Consider Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1770
Stanbridge
As previously noted, this item was
resolved prior to the meeting.
c.
Consider Abatement of Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1535
Sextant Avenue
Permit Coordinator Don Munson
reviewed violations at this single-family home at 1535 Sextant Avenue,
currently occupied by the owner’s son, Mr. Joe Cox. Mr. Munson noted that the
current owners are James and Debra Cox, 2 Peterson Place, North Oaks, MN; and
advised that the complaint had been generated by a neighbor.
Mr. Munson provided an update,
including pictures, of current violations, including outside storage of fencing
materials (violation of City Code, Section 407.02.D, Junk and Debris); and estimated
that removal of the materials would cost approximately $600.00, in addition to
storage and potential disposal of the materials, for a total anticipated
abatement cost of $1,500.00.
Mr. Munson advised that a notice
had been provided several times to the owner of record, with promises from Joe
Cox that the materials would be removed, but noted that they had not been
removed to-date. Mr. Munson noted that Mr. James Cox was present at tonight’s
meeting.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Munson advised that the fence materials may be more appropriate
for sale as scrap, but he questioned their viability for their use for fencing.
James Cox
Mr. Cox advised that over the last
decade, he, his brother and/or his son had all lived in the home; and he opined
that the fence was still usable and not simply scrap. Mr. Cox offered, once he
presented his perspective, to move the fencing this weekend to a screened in
porch or the garage on the property. Mr. Cox opined that it would have taken
him less time to move the fence than to attend tonight’s meeting; and alleged
that he felt strongly that Mr. Munson was discriminating against his 24 year
old son, the current resident. Mr. Cox advised that this was based on similar
or worse code issues at adjacent properties that had not been addressed by Mr.
Munson, and provided photo evidence of those issues. Mr. Cox advised that he
had respect for his neighbors, and tried to keep the yard looking well;
however, he reiterated that staff had a hidden agenda; and suggested that his
photographic proof more than proved his allegations.
Mayor Roe advised that, now that
staff had been alerted to code issues at adjacent properties, he anticipated
that Mr. Munson would act on reviewing those properties that would result in a
similar process to that for his property. However, Mayor Roe advised that
tonight’s discussion was specific to his property; and further advised that if
Mr. Cox wished to pursue allegations of discrimination, that was an entirely
different process as well and could be addressed at a time outside tonight’s
meeting.
Mr. Cox advised that the complaint
also cited leaves bagged on site; and provided his rationale in not getting
them to the compost site since it was not open at the time. Mr. Cox alleged
that Mr. Munson had personally moved the fencing and fence posts from their
original and more safely stacked position. Mr. Cox suggested, with
encouragement by his son, that he keep a spread sheet of code enforcement
issues within the neighborhood to see how long it took for them to be addressed
compared to the issues on his property; and suggested that this research would
result in his ability to prove age discrimination.
Mayor Roe briefly reviewed the
City’s code enforcement process, with most resolved between staff and property
owners, and few ending up before the City Council.
Mr. Cox asked if it was
permissible for him to move the fence within the screened porch as a
resolution.
Councilmember Willmus advised that he was recusing himself
from this discussion, based on a business relationship with Mr. Cox, and left
the bench during the discussion.
Councilmember McGehee noted the need
to comply with City Code, and asked Mr. Munson if storage of the fence
materials in the screened porch was acceptable with City Code.
Mr. Munson advised that inside
storage – whether in the screened-in porch or garage – would both be acceptable
as long as the storage was in accordance with City Code.
Councilmember McGehee suggested
that Mr. Cox be given up two (2) weeks to move the fence materials into the
garage or screened porch at his discretion; and questioned the status of leaves
on site in black garbage bags mentioned by Mr. Cox.
Mr. Munson advised that the
garbage bags may have been part of the original complaint; however, they had
been resolved and were no longer part of the requested abatement.
Councilmember Johnson noted the
potential for resolution of the fence material issue if Mr. Cox remediated the
situation as he suggested.
Mayor Roe noted that this was
typical for many abatement issues, with the homeowner given time to resolve an
issue and comply with City Code; however, he noted that staff’s request for
abatement authorization often provided an incentive to a property owner to
resolve the issue and avoid the abatement process.
Councilmember Johnson suggested
that Mr. Cox’s word be accepted that he would mediate the problem of the fencing
and fence poles by a date certain.
Mayor Roe noted that the next
meeting of the City Council was scheduled for May 14, 2012, which should allow
Mr. Cox more ample time to resolve the issue to avoid abatement action.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, to
not take action on the abatement request in the RCA at this time, allowing Mr.
Cox time to address the code violation, but directing staff to bring the
abatement back to the City Council for consideration on May 14th if
not addressed by the property owner by then.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.
Abstentions: Willmus
Motion carried.
16.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Discuss Council Attendance at LMC Annual Conference
City Manager Malinen summarized
the upcoming LMC Annual Conference and whether the City Council was interested
in or would support attendance by staff and/or members of the City Council at
their discretion.
Mayor Roe encouraged all
Councilmembers to attend, not just for the information and educational aspects,
but for the networking and interaction opportunities with peers.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of the LMC making workshops available by video for those not attending,
and to save money.
Mayor Roe noted that the LMC most
likely would not make their educational seminars available by video, but
preferred personal attendance, not only at the workshops but to support that interaction
of those attending.
Councilmember Pust opined that, if
and when attending, a formal report should be provided by staff or elected
officials, to share the information gathered, as well as to provide proof to
citizens of the value of attending and use of public funds to attend.
Councilmember Pust noted that this would serve to avoid perceptions and dispel
views of abuse of public funds.
Councilmember Willmus noted his
interest in attending; however, due to potential scheduling conflicts, advised
that if he attended he would do so at his expense, not the City’s, and
clarified with City Manager Malinen the pre-registration deadline of April 30,
2012.
Mayor Roe reiterated the important
learning opportunities and interaction with peers and presenters; and noted the
more frequent opportunities provided by the LMC other than at their annual
meeting.
b.
Discuss Electronic Meeting Packets
City Manager Malinen provided
preliminary information, through the staff report, on the potential cost
savings in electronic versus written production and distribution to City Councilmembers
of meeting materials.
Discussion included personal
preferences of each Councilmember; potential technological options and
software/hardware compatibility; actual time or money saved from one format to
another; practical application for electronic format and convenience of
receiving the materials; and training if applicable.
Councilmember Willmus noted his
personal preference for paper copies, based on flexibility of taking a packet
with him for study if he was out-of-town; and suggested that if the electronic
route was decided on, that the City purchase the hardware and software and it
remain on the Council dais, with the City providing maintenance and software
updates.
Councilmember Pust noted her
personal preference for hard copies; opining that monthly cost savings were
minimal other than saving staff time in producing the packet materials; and
opined that most people would still print a hard copy for their use.
Councilmember Pust, recognizing her remaining short tenure on the City Council,
noted previous discussions on purchasing computers for City Councilmembers to
use; and addressed additional costs for laptops, software and ongoing
maintenance and technology updates required.
Councilmember McGehee spoke to
specific technology available to individual Councilmembers; and spoke in support
of electronic packets. She noted that she had updated her computer system at
home to make necessary changes on PDF documents, but that to use a portable
computer, iPad or similar tablet; she would like software capable of making
marginal notes and highlighting for Council discussions. She also stated that
she would like to request specific hard copies when necessary for her Council
work. She again acknowledged the savings, particularly in staff time, and
personally supported electronic packets.
Councilmember Johnson supported
going paperless to save costs; and noted that his personal computer system
would support electronic receipt of the agenda packet; and personally spoke in
support of electronic agenda packets, as well as City purchase of the hardware.
Further discussion included
current policy of the City for technology replacement schedules; discerning
those items individual Councilmembers would still want to print; how to
transition equipment and reports from home to the City Council chambers; use of
a flash drive for making suggested revisions to reports; City network versus
the internet and how to ensure compatibility of that technology for individual
Councilmembers; and security of the information and the equipment when
off-site.
Councilmember Pust asked that the
Data Practices issue be considered as well, specifically what data belonged to
the City if using City equipment, and what was considered public information;
suggesting some items may become complicated or not protected by firewalls.
Councilmember Pust suggested a review of policies of other cities other than
that of Woodbury, as already provided.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff had originally envisioned that the device provide city materials via
wireless or internet (e.g. meeting packets) that would be e-mailed directly to
City Councilmembers or provided by flash drive.
Mayor Roe suggested that the
process be further reviewed; and that if electronic, it should be voluntary,
with each Councilmember’s preference respected. Mayor Roe spoke in support of
Councilmembers using their personal equipment and reimbursed by the City if
appropriate; and expressed confidence in the City’s Information Technology (IT)
staff to advise of the most appropriate security and virus systems to use.
Additional discussion included
availability and type of internet connection; the size and type of equipment if
provided by the City and whether it would be exclusively used for transmitting
packets, without e-mail capabilities; determining the experience of other
cities and applicable policies; and how to address security of personal versus
public data.
Councilmember Member Willmus
suggested, and Mayor Roe concurred, that a pilot program for several members of
the City Council be pursued.
As an example, City Attorney
Gaughan noted past issues with state-owned cell phones and/or use of personal
cell phones for official duties and related data privacy issues, with determination
that all information became public. City Attorney Gaughan cautioned
Councilmembers to keep data privacy in mind and how government-owned data could
be addressed and be aware of issues before making a final decision.
Mayor Roe concurred.
Mayor Roe suggested to City
Manager Malinen that he continue to research policy issues, determine
individual City Councilmember interest in participating in a pilot issue once
procedural and technological issues had been further resolved, and report at a
future meeting.
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
At the request of Councilmember Pust
as to the specific May meeting anticipated for further discussion of the Walmart
EAW, City Manager Malinen advised that the specific date remained pending at
this point; and would be discussed at the upcoming staff meeting to determine
if actual date can be defined at this time.
15.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16.
Adjourn
Pust moved, McGehee seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:40 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust;
and Roe.
Nays: None.