City
Council Meeting Minutes
October 8, 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: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe).
City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember
Johnson was ill and unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe advised that
Councilmember Johnson had requested removal of Agenda Item 12.a entitled
“Approve LHB Consulting as Lead Consultant for the Park and Recreation Renewal
Program;” for discussion and consideration at next week’s regular business
meeting. Mayor Roe sought consensus of Councilmembers as to their willingness
to defer this item for one week.
Councilmember Pust noted the need
to clarify appropriate and/or inappropriate reasons to remove items from an
agenda. Councilmember Pust opined that it would be inappropriate to remove the
item tonight if it was for the purpose of assuring a vote one way or the
other. Councilmember Pust further opined that it would be appropriate to
remove it from tonight’s agenda as a professional courtesy for those having an
interest and unable to discuss the item at tonight’s meeting. Councilmember
Pust stated that if the latter was the reason for the request to defer this
item, she was supportive of that; however, she wanted to clarify that the
agenda was not used for manipulating a vote dependent on who was attending a
specific meeting.
Mayor Roe duly noted that
clarification; and by consensus, Councilmembers were in support of deferring
this item to the next regular business meeting.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
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 that flu shots
would be available at City Hall, in addition to free blood pressure, hearing
and eye tests (minimum age 3 years old and minors accompanied by a parent or
guardian with identification), on Thursday, October 18, 2012 from 4:30 – 7:00 pm.
Mayor Roe noted that most health insurance carriers would be accepted, but
adequate proof of insurance would be needed, or the cost of the flu shots would
be $29 for the shot or $34 for the flu mist.
Councilmember McGehee suggested
that those seeking flu shots ask their provider for which version they should
receive as there is a more potent “over 65” version. She noted that providers
don’t always ask so if you don’t want the “stronger” version, ask which they
are planning to give you
Mayor Roe noted that applications for
one (1) vacancy on the Human Rights Commission remained open through Wednesday,
October 10, 2012, to complete an unfinished term through March 31, 2013.
Applications are available at City Hall on the City’s website or by calling 651/792-7001.
Councilmember Willmus noted several
upcoming free educational forums on the proposed constitutional amendments
(Voter I.D. on October 9, 2012) and (Marriage Amendment on October 23, 2012),
both co-sponsored by the Roseville and Maplewood Human Rights Commissions; and
to be held at the Maplewood Community Center/City Hall. Additional information
on the forums is available by contacting the Maplewood Human Rights Commission
at 651/429-2000, or via either of the City websites.
Mayor Roe announced that the City’s
Finance Director Chris Miller had been presented with the Thomas J. Moran Award
by the Minnesota Government Finance Officers’ Association at their recent
annual meeting. Mayor Roe noted that this award initiated in 1981, had only
had sixteen (16) recipients to-date during those thirty (30) years, to those
Government Finance Officers demonstrating outstanding efforts in their field.
On behalf of himself, the City Council, and the community, Mayor Roe
congratulated Mr. Miller for this recognition.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a.
Recognize Representative Mindy Greiling and Ramsey County
Commissioner Jan Parker
Mayor Roe recognized Representative
Mindy Greiling for her legislative work and representing the needs of Roseville
for twenty (20) years, and presented her with a floral arrangement in
appreciation of her service.
Rep. Greiling responded that she
had been proud to represent the City of Roseville, noting that the community
had few problems and seldom sought a handout from the Capitol, other than
regional needs of the OVAL. Rep. Greiling stated that Roseville was a great
City, had a great City Council and staff to work with; and that she had enjoyed
those relationships very much. Rep. Greiling noted that she was looking
forward to retirement, but would continue to watch things run well from home.
Mayor Roe recognized Ramsey County
Commissioner Jan Parker for her representation of the City of Roseville for
sixteen (16) years; noting that she would be retiring from that position at the
end of 2012. Mayor Roe presented Commissioner Parker with a floral arrangement
in appreciation of her service.
Commissioner Parker echoed the
remarks of Rep. Greiling; stating that it had been an honor to represent
Roseville as part of the six (6) cities in her District, noting that Roseville
represented half of the entire District. Noting that, prior to becoming a
Ramsey County Commissioner, she had served as the City Administrator for Falcon
Heights; and during that time as well as during her tenure as a County
Commissioner, Commissioner Parker stated that it had been a pleasure and she
had appreciated the opportunity to work with former and current staff and City
Councils in Roseville. Commissioner Parker noted that those community
representatives were wonderful to work with and she had always found excellent
working relationships, and she was proud to work with the City of Roseville.
Commissioner Parker noted the acquisition of additional park land on Larpenteur
Avenue and Kent Street as one of the accomplishments; and noted the many other
cooperative ventures; and further noted that it was a common acknowledgement
among Ramsey County’s staff that they’ve had nothing but positive experiences
in working with the Roseville City Councils and staff. Commissioner Parker
stated that the City of Roseville had a lot to be proud of; and while she was
sad that her role as a Commissioner was coming to an end, she was looking
forward to the next phase of her professional life, as Co-Chair of the North
Suburban Senior Council, and advisory board working with the Roseville Area
Senior Program.
Councilmembers, led by
Councilmember Pust, expressed their collective thanks to Rep. Greiling and
Commissioner Parker respectively for their great work.
6. Approve Minutes
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.
a.
Approve Minutes of September 24, 2012 Meeting
Corrections:
·
Page 25, line 5 (Willmus)
Strike portion of sentence: “While
not necessarily wanting to deal with the issue at this time,
Councilmember Willmus stated…”
·
Page 16, lines 29-30 (McGehee)
Correct to read
…”a total [HRA] Levy of [12.3] [2.3]% [exclusive]
[inclusive]…
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the minutes of the September 24, 2012 meeting as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
- Approve Consent Agenda
There were no changes to the
Consent Agenda. At the request of Mayor Roe, Acting City Manager Chris Miller 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
|
$597,720.43
|
|
67671 – 67856
|
668,276.43
|
|
Total
|
$1,265,996.86
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
McGehee; 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
|
|
John Hopp, Jr. & Robert Tessman at
Mind, Body & Soul Wellness; 2201 Lexington Avenue S
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
Barbara North at Massage Envy Roseville; 2480 Fairview
Ave.
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
Elizabeth Kaul-Bjornson at Kairos Center
2301 Woodbridge #103
|
Massage Therapist
|
|
Holiday Trees; 418 Woodhill Drive
|
Christmas Tree Sales
|
|
Gene’s Disposal Service; 5661 – 152nd Street N;
Hugo, MN
|
Solid Waste Hauler
|
|
Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities
4325 East 66th Street; Inver Grove Heights, MN
|
Solid Waste Hauler
|
|
Gene’s Disposal Service
5661 – 152nd Street N; Hugo, MN
|
Recycling Hauler
|
|
Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities
4325 East 66th Street; Inver Grove Heights, MN
|
Recycling Hauler
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
$5,000.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of the following purchases and/or contracts for service:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Description
|
Amount
|
|
Police
|
MidAmerica
Auctions
|
Used vehicle for crime impact team (to be purchased with
Police Narcotic Forfeiture funds)
|
$8,125.00
|
|
Police
|
Recon Robotics
|
Throwbot units – 2 (micro-robots used to quietly move
through structures, transmitting video and audit; funded through same Fund as
above, with full reimbursement from Ramsey County Emergency Management and
Homeland Security.
|
34,546.67
|
Roll
Call
Ayes: Willmus;
McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the following sale of surplus vehicles and/or equipment:
|
Department
|
Item / Description
|
Amount
|
|
Police
|
Sell used crime impact team vehicle
|
$4,000 (estimate)
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
d.
Approve 2012 City Benefits Insurance Renewals and Cafeteria
Contributions
Acting City Manager Miller advised
that, as a result of staff negotiations and due to reduced usage and
preventative efforts of staff, the City would be realizing only a 2.33%
increase for 2013 for this benefit package.
Councilmember McGehee
congratulated staff on their ongoing Wellness Programs and its results.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the 2012 City benefits insurance renewals and cafeteria contributions as
described in the staff report dated October 8, 2012; with their respective
contracts, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney; detailed in the
Request for Council Action (RCA) dated October 8, 2012.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
- Consider Items Removed from Consent
12.
General Ordinances for Adoption
13.
Presentations
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:23 p.m. to
reconfigure the meeting from the dais to the table; and reconvened at
approximately 6:29 p.m.
a. Quarterly
Joint Meeting with Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
HRA Board Members Present: Chair
Dean Maschka; and Members William Masche; Bill Majerus; and Vicki Lee.
HRA Staff Present: HRA Executive
Director Patrick Trudgeon; and Housing Program Manager Jeanne Kelsey.
Dale Street – MOU
Chair Maschka reviewed a
Redevelopment Process/Timeline for 2325 Dale Street and Fire Station #3, as detailed
in Attachment A, part of the RCA dated October 8, 2012.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Chair
Maschka reviewed the properties under discussion: 2325 Dale Street, Fire
Station #3, and Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21 on Cope Avenue, adjacent to the Dale
Street Fire Station, all now assembled with the proposed intent to build a
multi-family – not low-income – housing complex.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Ms. Kelsey advised that the lots, as assembled, represented
approximately three (3) acres total; currently zoned as four (4) single-family
lots, and the corner lot zoned as High Density Residential (HDR). Ms. Kelsey
noted that the Fire Station lot was approximately one (1) acre, the lot with an
existing single-family home approximately one (1) acre; and the remaining four
(4) single family lots equaling approximately one (1) acre.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Chair Maschka clarified that it was the HRA’s intent to involve the
neighbors early and throughout the Charette team process.
While a determination would depend
on the proposal and process, and at the request of Councilmember Pust, Chair
Maschka advised that the HRA preferred not to own the development, but
facilitate a private/public partnership that would best serve the community.
Councilmember Pust noted her
continued view that government should not own the development, but get it into
the private market.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her appreciation that the project would not be low-income; and referenced an
article in today’s Star Tribune, addressing the trend for higher end
apartments in the suburban metropolitan area. Councilmember McGehee further
addressed comments heard in the past from residents of former apartments turned
into condominium units that continue to experience structural and environmental
problems with those conversions; and opined that more modern buildings were
needed to eliminate issues such as odors and second hand smoke penetrating
other units.
Chair Maschka recognized those
concerns, advising that such issues would be considered during discussions; and
also noting that HRA Member Lee had brought up the need to design buildings for
100 years for alternative uses over that entire period; and advised that the
HRA would push for a great design accordingly.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of the
100 year design; and life cycle of buildings that may become different in
future generations.
Chair Maschka noted, as an
example, the RosePointe complex as a well-built facility.
Councilmember McGehee noted
another example, the low-income senior housing complex located immediately to
the east of Key’s Restaurant on Larpenteur and Lexington.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
A draft MOU was provided for
review and discussion (Attachment A continued), with Chair Maschka reviewing
the various provisions. Chair Maschka noted that one obvious issue was on how
to value the Fire Department land, once it changed uses from a fire station.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, staff confirmed that the fire station lot was currently zoned
Institutional, with the other lots zoned Single-Family, and one zoned HDR.
While some would argue that this may be a suitable retail use site, Chair
Maschka noted that it was not currently zoned or guided for future zoning for
that purpose. Chair Maschka sought City Council feedback to provide a clear,
precise written understanding between the HRA and City Council.
Mayor Roe questioned whether or
not the price to convey the fire station property was “as is” or net cost with
demolition and remediation costs. From a City standpoint, Mayor Roe noted that
the HRA and City are under the same umbrella; and opined that the cost for
development of the property should include remediation costs at a minimum.
Chair Maschka noted that, as costs
started to come forward, those details needed to be worked out; and even though
both parties were in the same boat, discussion was needed on how to best
equalize the costs.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Chair Maschka, confirmed that options needed to consider if and how those
costs would be passed on to the private market place. Councilmember Pust suggested
that such consideration needed to be a major issue in whichever way was
determined.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust regarding any potential environmental contamination on the Fire Station
site, Ms. Kelsey advised that today was the first Phase I environmental
inspection of the site. Ms. Kelsey advised that the initial visual inspection
indicated the biggest potential contamination concern was asbestos for both
properties (fire station, and single family home built in the early 70s);
however, she noted that an evaluation was pending to determine the extent and
amount of that concern. Ms. Kelsey noted a contingency had been included in
the Purchase Agreement that a future point of discussion would be required to
discuss remediation and cost of removal with the homeowner representatives.
Councilmember Pust noted that this
was an important piece for discussion, opining that if they had sold to the
private market place, they would have also needed to address this cost; and
further opined that the potential sale to the City as a public entity should in
no way impact or suggest a discount in their responsibility to address these
environmental remediation issues and costs.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if any density adjustments needed to be addressed, since these properties abut
single-family homes on the west.
Mayor Roe noted that there was
also an existing multi-family facility on the other side on the south.
Councilmember Pust, recognizing
that the market place indicates a need for high-end apartments, asked that as
public representatives, consideration and discussion ensue about mixed
socio-economic housing, and that it not be ruled out if it could work based on
the size of the future development.
Chair Maschka advised that, at
this time, nothing had been taken off the table; and the HRA was very
supportive of good intergenerational and mixed use housing, and was more than
willing to work that in and consider the best option for the community.
Member Masche advised that the HRA
as a whole, and individually, was very excited to be having this discussion,
opining that it had been a long time coming. As Councilmember McGehee brought
up, Member Masche confirmed the HRA’s interest in keeping the neighborhood
involved from the beginning and throughout the process. Member Masche noted
the HRA’s strong interest in seeing this development succeed; and addressed
discussions and studies to-date from staff, other communities and numerous
studies. Member Masche referenced, as an example, the Excelsior and Grand
project; and, with the agreement of the City Council, the HRA’ s control of the
site to work with architectural firms for the best design possible once the
type of product has been determined. Member Masche noted that it was the HRA’s
desire to drive a process that would get what was best for Roseville citizens
and serve to update current housing stock, based on updated studies. At this
time, Member Masche opined that how many and the type of units was hard to
identify at this time; but noted that the HRA had been studying the issue for
some time, and thanks to staff, a great Purchase Agreement had been put in
place, with good protections for everyone. Member Masche opined that by having
the full three (3) acre site available, it would allow a great site to work
with and serve to positively improve that neighborhood, as well as creating a
milestone for the HRA and community. Member Masche opined that he couldn’t
wait to start on the process and a future project.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
she was also very excited about a potential project; noting that she liked the
ideas, and also that the City was in the driver’s seat. Addressing comments of
Chair Maschka, Councilmember McGehee noted that other communities had proven
that affordable, high-end buildings could be constructed, and also include a
percentage of those units set aside at a fixed rate; and provided several
examples of some she had observed. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was
her hope that, out of this process and with Mr. Trudgeon’s assistance, a policy
could be developed to deal with affordable housing and facilitate that mix
moving forward to eliminate and/or avoid future pockets of poverty in the
community.
Refocusing on the draft MOU, Mayor
Roe suggested discussion on whether or not the City nets out remediation and
demolition costs from its costs and be reflected in the MOU.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that, in
order to maximize the public benefit and dollars, the more costs that could be
shifted to the private market the better; and expressed his uncertainty that
those provisions could be adequately defined today, since incentives may be
needed to drive that benefit. Mr. Trudgeon asked that the MOU be left as
flexible as possible to lower costs, for a future collective decision by the
HRA and City Council; but that the MOU provisions not be too rigid at this
point.
Mayor Roe concurred, clarifying
that the goal or objective is to have the developer bear as much cost as
reasonable. Mayor Roe noted that, in Twin Lakes, the City had discussed clean-up
by the original polluters, where possible, and it only made sense that the City
bear the responsibility for its own responsibilities in cleaning up the fire
station as applicable.
Chair Maschka noted that the next
HRA meeting would serve to discuss those provisions more specifically and
provide guidelines to move the process forward.
Councilmember Pust concurred that
incentives were needed to process; however, she noted that the availability of
a three (3) acre site in Roseville was already a great incentive.
Member Lee noted that, unless some
affordable mechanism was incorporated, public monies may be needed to do so.
Councilmember Pust suggested
seeking input and expertise from AEON or other developers of such facilities
that the City had previously worked with (e.g. tax credits).
Member Majerus noted the need to
maximize the project’s net worth for Roseville.
Councilmember Pust suggested that
those ideas be brought back as a directive; and Chair Maschka noted that they
were already under discussion for such a purpose.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested that this
item be brought back on the October 15, 2012, City Council Consent Agenda; with
concurrence by Mayor Roe to do so.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon
confirmed that the City did not own any property beyond the fire station site
at this time.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
Ms. Kelsey advised that, following appraisals for all of the properties, the
total amount offered in the Purchase Agreement for two (2) acres was roughly
$638,000.00.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Kelsey reviewed how the HRA intended to finance the purchase in the short-term,
with funding available in the HRA’s Revolving Loan Fund, currently not being
used, allowing the HRA to utilize those funds for HDR without carrying costs.
While the HRA could bond for the financing as well, Ms. Kelsey advised that the
HRA preferred not to do so to avoid any carrying costs and limiting income in
that fund balance. Ms. Kelsey noted that the fund restrictions allowed for its
use for a broad variety of housing options.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Chair Maschka advised that Phase II for the HRA would include discussions
with School District No. 623 regarding the former Owasso School site; with
Member Majerus (also serving as a member of the School Board) advising that
dates for scheduling a meeting for those discussions were underway but remained
pending. Chair Maschka noted that the HRA had gotten close to discussions in
the past, however, he recognized that the School Board’s priorities changed
frequently due to budget and other issues that arose.
Mayor Roe noted that demolition
had been scheduled of the current structures on that site by year-end 2012.
HRA Action Plan Review and Discussion
Chair Maschka noted the provision
of an updated HRA Strategic Action Plan (Attachment B), updated from previous
discussions with the City Council, and at their suggestion, providing more
detail on those proposed actions.
Chair Maschka noted recent
comments of Ms. Peg Kennedy, with the Roseville School District, that this year
had found the largest increase in some time of young, white families moving
into Roseville. While not sure of the reason for this movement, Chair Maschka
expressed encouragement that a lot of young families were moving into the
community again, evidenced in numerous neighborhoods. Chair Maschka expressed
his hope that this was in part due to the marketing campaigns initiated by the
HRA (e.g. Living Smarter).
Mayor Roe noted that those young
families were not just White, but also included other ethnicities as well,
continuing to include many diverse families.
In addressing the action plan,
Councilmember McGehee noted the proposed demolition of the fire station project
as a major project; as well as the proposed multi-family licensing project,
both of which she supported. However, Councilmember McGehee questioned if
taking on another major project at this time by the HRA, such as rehabilitation
and/or demolition of existing homes or clearing those lots, was a good idea at
this time, or if it would prove to be too much as well as being another cost to
taxpayers at this time.
While recognizing the concerns of
Councilmember McGehee, on behalf of the HRA Board and from a standpoint of
priorities, Chair Maschka noted that the demolition/rehabilitation (Item 4.b on
the Action Plan) would only be utilized if and when such opportunities came
forward, and that they would not be ongoing.
Ms. Kelsey concurred, noting that
funds were designated for acquisition and demolition; however, the line item on
the Action Plan were income-restricted funds; and the goal of such a program
was designed to allow the marketplace to bring up the overall value of a
neighborhood. Ms. Kelsey advised that such a program had been used in the past
by the City for code enforcement properties, with negotiations with owners to
sell those properties.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Kelsey reviewed criteria for such a program, using a previous example of a
single-family home on a single lot on Rice Street near County Road C available,
but since no funds were in place the HRA had been prevented from taking
advantage of the opportunity presented, even though other redevelopment
activity was occurring in that area.
Chair Maschka noted that, since
this was a missed opportunity, the property would continue to deteriorate and
degrade that area of the community.
Member Lee also concurred, noting
that the property was no longer on the market and was now a rental property;
advising that such a situation had spurred this program by the HRA.
Mayor Roe recognized the HRA’s
determination to build a fund balance to address future similar situations,
suggesting that it could be realigned with the levy as appropriate.
Reiterating her original
statement, Councilmember McGehee advised that she was not opposed to the HRA
bringing these proposals forward, suggesting they be addressed on an urgency
basis with the City Council. As an example, Councilmember McGehee noted a
request several years ago from a condominium association seeking a loan for
necessary repairs, a very desirable site for use of such a program, since this
represented a former apartment complex converted to condominium units.
Councilmember McGehee noted her observation that the tenants/owners included
young couples who had purchased units as first-time homebuyers unaware of the
calamity about to befall them. While being supportive of the HRA’s efforts,
Councilmember McGehee noted her need to balance public money requests, and
asked that the HRA cooperate in recognizing the many needs of those public
monies.
Mayor Roe suggested that the HRA
revisit their Action Plan as part of their 2013 budget request. Councilmember
McGehee was amenable to that at this time.
Mayor Roe expressed his
appreciation for more details provided in the Action Plan since its last
presentation.
Multi-family Rental Housing Licensing
– Discussion for Recommended Approach
Chair Maschka summarized this
proposed licensing program as detailed in Attachment C; seeking input–from the
City Council prior to the HRA scheduling a public hearing and seeking comment
from the community and property owners. Chair Maschka sought additions,
whether the HRA was headed in the right direction; and spoke in support of the
proposed incentives to encourage higher standards. Chair Maschka noted that
the actual costs remained an unknown at this time, admitting that this is a
concern to him personally; however, he noted the need to provide some type of
category for discussion purposes. Chair Maschka advised that this was only one
(1) option, and other communities had tried such an option. Chair Maschka
advised that the Trust option held some appeal to him as well, and may be
something the City would have to deal with.
Mayor Roe opined that the Trust
option could serve as an additional tool in addition to the licensing program.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Trudgeon addressed the rationale in various categories and the
“carrots” to encourage a higher standard through attendance a property owner
meetings, eligibility and criteria per category. Mr. Trudgeon advised that
this “first attempt” in developing the property licensing requirements and
categories had been drafted as a discussion point for tonight’s meeting, and by
no means should be viewed as a complete document, and would still require a lot
of input. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the biggest issue was seeking whether the
HRA was headed in the right direction. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the
majority of the existing multi-family buildings would be categorized as “Type
A,” there would be some unfortunately that may be classified as “Type D.” Mr.
Trudgeon advised that the intent of the Licensing Program was to have a tool
for enforcement available for the City to encourage those “Type D” property
owners by incentivizing them – whether through financial means or others – to
better their properties. Mr. Trudgeon noted that it was not the intent that
the program be a financial burden for the majority “Type A” properties; but the
goal was to provide incentives for their improvement; with many details yet to
be worked out.
Ms. Kelsey used an 11-unit
building as an example of potential licensing costs for the program, (e.g. $10
per unit and $100 per property) and staff inspection costs for those property
owners as associated with the private market ($30 per unit and $100 per
building) for common area and overall operating inspections. Ms. Kelsey noted,
under those projected costs, a property would be subject to $430 every three
(3) years, for “Type A” properties, and a license fee every three (3) years.
Ms. Kelsey advised that it was anticipated that the property owner would
ultimately apply those costs of doing business to individual unit rents.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the costs
would obviously be more onerous for “Type D” properties; however, he advised
that this was the rationale in incenting better performance, while protecting
property owners and the City.
Mayor Roe noted that it was
critical that building owners participate in development of this program, not
just at the upcoming Public Hearing. Based on his past experience serving on
the Rental Licensing Study Group, Mayor Roe emphasized the need to involve
those property owners early on in the process and keep them involved throughout
on a continuing basis. Mayor Roe was unsure whether such peer groups serve as
a panel to judge violations or determines license status; however, he did
support them serving to self-police each other.
Chair Maschka noted the helpful
assistance to-date with the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing Association,
recognizing one of their representatives in the audience tonight.
In response to points raised, Ms.
Kelsey advised that, until the City Council’s feedback was heard tonight and
support of the direction being considered by the HRA, staff was unable to
develop more specifics for the program. Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA
intended to have that suggested dialogue with property owners at an upcoming
open house to seek their input and get their involvement, after which a
proposed program would be fine-tuned to balance interests of all parties. Ms.
Kelsey advised that it was the intent of the HRA to continue meeting quarterly
with the City Council to continue discussions such as this; as well as engaging
other property owners who could serve as models for other property owners in
such a program. Ms. Kelsey recognized the ongoing educational needs and relationship-building
needed between good property owners and others needing leadership models.
Chair Maschka noted that this
would be where the multi-family training came into the picture.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of the program in general; however, she noted something apparently
missing from previous discussions related to Councilmember Johnson’s comments
about “point of sale” or re-inspection or certification of status upon turnover
of units and/or properties. Councilmember Pust opined that this seemed to
provide a great opportunity to address potential issues.
Chair Maschka clarified if
Councilmember Pust meant when a unit itself turned over or the property in
general.
Councilmember Pust clarified that
she was referring to units turning over.
Ms. Kelsey noted that, in the
outline, opportunities were addressed based on a complaint basis, or when a
third party observed an issue (e.g. fire department first response personnel);
who would in turn notify staff to get into a unit for inspection, at which time
staff would notify property owners for an initial determination of the status
of that particular unit. Ms. Kelsey noted that this could then determine
whether or not the entire property underwent an inspection at that time, or
whether the complaint was credible.
While that made sense,
Councilmember Pust clarified that she preferred to address issues before a
third party was called in, and reiterated Councilmember Johnson’s former
interest in “point of sale” type inspections.
Ms. Kelsey noted that could be
addressed as a rental right based on inspection and the condition of an
individual unit.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of considering such a provision.
While not currently included in
the draft program presented by staff, Mr. Trudgeon concurred that it should be
addressed. Mr. Trudgeon opined that it may be burdensome every time a unit
turned over, at a minimum it should be addressed when a property was sold, and
would serve to get everyone back to square one, while also allowing staff to
interact with a new property owner and inspect the building to make them aware
of the City’s expectations.
Councilmember Pust concurred with inspections when the property is sold, and
recognized that it may be burdensome to inspect units when they turned over;
however, she suggested that a future ordinance include exchange inventory of
conditions as part of a new tenant’s paperwork, along with a statement from the
City listing its expectations and standards, so new tenants were aware of those
issues.
Member Lee suggested a lease
addendum be required; however, she noted that property tenants in “Type D”
buildings were not typically going to read their lease agreements.
Councilmember Pust suggested
adding that as an incentive and as a marketing tool for property owners; as
well as giving more power to the private market place and other tenants.
Councilmember McGehee opined that,
if a property was determined as a problematic “Type D,” the whole unit
inspection process outlined by Councilmember Pust could serve as additional
incentive for them to improve individual units as they turned over, which would
slowly upgrade them to another category.
Mayor Roe noted that the proposed
inspection schedule for “Type D” properties is every six (6) months.
Ms. Kelsey noted that staff could
identify a percentage of those units and select which units, particularly those
that continued to turn over, or at the discrimination of the City.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Ms. Kelsey advised that the proposed percentage of units based on
category had been provided in discussion with the City’s Code Officials and
their recommendation and varied by building sizes. Ms. Kelsey advised that the
City of Roseville had a considerable number of eleven (11) and seventeen (17)
unit buildings, and the proposed percentages would provide a good cross-section
of units per building.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting
that staff chose which units for inspection, not the landlord, which should
also provide a good cross-section.
Chair Maschka advised that
inspection of common areas should provide a good indication of what was
occurring in individual units as well.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of
having a minimum threshold and establishing criteria, with specifics on how to
do so yet to be determined.
At the request of Chair Maschka
regarding if and how to share information or categories for rental buildings,
Ms. Kelsey advised that it was public information and some communities provided
that information on their websites.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of providing that information, since public monies were being invested
in the program.
Member Lee noted that the
information was beneficial to potential renters.
Chair Maschka noted that this
would provide further incentive to remain or become a good property.
Councilmember Pust noted that if
all rental properties became “Type A’s”
it would also create interest in renting in Roseville, not neighboring
communities.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the City could mandate a pre-possession inspection as part of lease language
for tenants and landlords that would be provided to the City.
Ms. Kelsey and Mr. Trudgeon
advised that they would need to consult with legal counsel on whether that was
an option.
Councilmember Pust opined that
licensing was a right, not a privilege.
Mayor Roe opined that, whether
mandatory or not, staff needed to seek legal advice on that.
Councilmember McGehee suggested
that a final policy should be posted in the common area of each rental
building.
Member Lee noted that that would
be similar to HUD requirements.
Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA
and City Council needed to be aware that this program would have associated
costs, since staff would need to be more involved; and it would take four (4)
different departments or areas for that staff time to ensure a good program
that reflected well on the City.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Police
Department had been a very good partner in developing this program to-date and
was fully supportive of the goals and objectives of the program, specifically
from a public safety standpoint.
Chair Maschka thanked everyone for
their feedback and tonight’s discussion.
Mayor Roe concurred and thanked everyone as well.
14.
Public Hearings
15.
Business Items (Action Items)
a. Approve
LHB Consulting as Lead Consultant for the Park and Recreation Renewal Program
As previously noted, this item was
deferred to the next regular meeting.
b. Adopt
Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Environmental Policy
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon briefly summarized this proposed policy, as a result of the
expiration on October 15, 2012, of the current Twin Lakes Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) environmental review document. The background of this
item was detailed in the RCA dated October 8, 2012.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), whether discretionary or
otherwise, is relatively easy and inexpensive; and suggested removing language
making it an option for a business seeking not to perform an EAW the ability to
come before the City Council for special consideration.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that there was not sufficient in-house staff to
perform this review, and planned to hire it out, but controlled by the City.
Discussion ensued among
Councilmembers on language of the proposed policy, with the consensus being to
remove a portion of the final sentence in Item 3, and complete removal of Item
5 of the proposed policy, and reformatting the policy accordingly.
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 11015(Attachment A) entitled, Twin Lakes
Environmental Review Policy;” amended as follows:
·
Item 3 will read:
“If an AUAR is not in place
for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and a development is not required to do
a mandatory EAW or EIS, a proposed development within the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area will be required to conduct an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAS) as provided for in Chapter 4410.10000 (3) (A) (Discretionary
EAW’s) of the Minnesota Administrative Rules [unless waived by direct City
Council action].”
·
Current Item 5 to be stricken in its
entirety; and Item #6 renumbered to Item 5.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus;
McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.
13. Business Items – Presentations / Discussions
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Acting City Manager Miller reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmembers Willmus and Pust
asked that these agenda previews be e-mailed to Councilmembers in the future
rather than distributed at the end of each meeting.
Acting City Manager Miller advised that he would bring this request to the
attention of City Manager Malinen at the next staff meeting.
Mr. Miller noted that, to the
extent possible, the October 15, 2012, meeting was reserved for 2013 budget
discussions, and would include those additional information items requested
to-date by individual Councilmembers and the collective body.
Councilmembers noted the need to
include the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) discussed tonight in the joint
meeting with the HRA; as well as the item 12.a deferred from tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Miller duly noted these items.
Councilmember Willmus suggested
that the October 22, 2012 item 12.b be deferred until after the election, so
the new City Council could be involved in scheduling 2013 meetings.
Mayor Roe concurred that the item
should be moved after the election.
In noting the recognizing the
October 22, 2012, consideration of three (3) liquor license compliance
failures, Mr. Miller noted that the subsequent Public Hearing on 2013 liquor
license renewals for on- and off-sale licenses may be impacted as a result of
those failures.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr.
Miller confirmed that the City Council, at their discretion, could adopt the
2013 budget on December 3, 2012, as there was no longer a mandatory waiting
period.
Mayor Roe asked that staff also
bring back CIP recommendations as related to the 2013 budget at the October 15,
2012 meeting; advising that he would have some additional input for that
discussion.
i.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
ii.
Adjourn
Pust moved, McGehee seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:38 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; and Roe.
Nays: None.