City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

June 9, 2014

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. City Manager Pat Trudgeon and City Attorney Charles Bartholdi were also present.

 

2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Roe noted that Agenda Item 13.c entitled, "Community Development Department Request to Perform Abatement for Unresolved City Code Violations at 311 County Road B" had been removed as violations had been resolved.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled "Request by Lakewest and Commers Enterprises Southtown for Vacation of Unused Right-of-Way at 2501 - 2699 Patton Road" for questions.

 

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded approval of the agenda as amended.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; 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.

 

4.      Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

          Mayor Roe announced several Parks & Recreation-related "Playground Builds" volunteer opportunities this weekend at Materion and Howard Johnson Parks and available shifts, with additional information available from Recreation Superintendent Rick Schultz at 651/492-7104.

 

Mayor Roe announced upcoming Rosefest activities from June 26 - 30; and July 4, 2014 events for Independence Day, with a list of family activities and events - many free - available on the City's website or on the Rosefest Hotline at 651/792-7411 and times, locations and registration information if needed.

 

          Councilmember Laliberte advised that the next meeting of the Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) was scheduled for June 26, 2014 at Union Depot, with the main focus on transit-related items, with her report on the meeting to follow at a later date.

 

Mayor Roe provided a brief update on the Cable Franchise Renewal with Comcast, and vote by the North Suburban Communications Commission at their May 15, 2014 special meeting to recommend that the ten member cities deny the Comcast proposal as presented.  Mayor Roe advised that ongoing efforts will continue for informal negotiations; with the Roseville City Council scheduled to consider their options and take action at the regular June 16, 2014 meeting.  Mayor Roe advised that an opportunity for public comment would be available at that time.

 

Without attempting to speak for them, at the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mayor Roe briefly expanded on a recent newspaper article related to action of the Shoreview City Council based on their concerns with negotiations to-date.

 

5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            Recognize Girl Scout Gold Award Winners

On behalf of the City Council, community and staff, Mayor Roe recognized Courtney Gastecki for her accomplishments as a member of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl Scout Gold Award, with projects to help educate the community on responsible pet ownership and adoption; and declared June 9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, declaring June 9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville; and recognized Courtney Gastecki for her accomplishments as a member of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl Scout Gold Award, with projects to help educate the community on responsible pet ownership and adoption.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

On behalf of the City Council, community and staff, Mayor Roe recognized Madeleine Logeais for her accomplishments as a member of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl Scout Gold Award, with projects to help inspire students to participate in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Learning; and declared June 9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville.

 

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, declaring June 9, 2014 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville; and recognized Madeleine Logeais for her accomplishments as a member of the Girl Scouts of MN, earning the Girl Scout Gold Award, with projects to help inspire students to participate in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Learning.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Recognize New Police Officers and Volunteer Coordinator

Police Chief Rick Mathwig introduced the City's most recently-hired City of Roseville Police Officers Mitch Christensen, Zach Wiesner, and Crystal Jones, officially sworn in on May 22, 2014; and read a brief biography for each officer in order of their hire.

 

Mayor welcomed the officers in their service to the City of Roseville and its citizens.

 

City Manager Patrick Trudgeon introduced recently-hired City of Roseville Volunteer Coordinator Ms. Kelly O'Brien; and offered a brief biography and summary of her work to-date in volunteer coordination.

 

At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Ms. O'Brien thanked the City Council for recognizing the potential of community engagement and the need for an infrastructure of volunteers to address that.  Ms. O'Brien expressed her enthusiasm for working with the City Council and community residents to build a greater Roseville.

 

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.            Minutes of May 12, 2014 Regular Meeting

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2014 as presented.

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Minutes of May 22, 2014 Special Meeting

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, approval of Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2014 as amended.

 

Corrections:

Page 26, Lines 15 - 18 (Roe)

Confirmed that Councilmember Laliberte was the speaker; and corrected typographical error from "per-empt" to "preempt."

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; 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 Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

 

a.            Approve Payments

Councilmember Willmus asked that the Check Register duplex printing be in a format that is easier to read as done in the past; duly noted by staff as a copying error.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments	$984,411.64
73643 - 73930	750,590.69
Total	$1,735,002.33

                       

                                                Roll Call

            Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

            Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve Business Licenses & Other Licenses & Permits

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, unless otherwise noted, for the following applicants:

                            

Applicant/Location	Type of License
Feng Lee; Massage Xcape; 1767 Lexington Avenue N	Massage Therapist
Amanda Drake; Massage Envy; 2480 Fairview Avenue	Massage Therapist
Diamond Lake 1994, LLC, d/b/a Cub Foods #6694 1201 Larpenteur Avenue W	Cigarette / Tobacco Products
Renaissance Fireworks, Inc. Roseville Center Parking Lot; 1135 Larpenteur Avenue W	Sale of Consumer Fireworks
TNT Fireworks Rainbow Foods Parking Lot; 1201 Larpenteur Avenue W	Sale of Consumer Fireworks
TNT Fireworks Walmart Parking Lot; 1960 Twin Lakes Parkway	Sale of Consumer Fireworks
RBF, LLC of Wisconsin, d/b/a Rainbow Foods #8802 1201 Larpenteur Avenue W	Sale of Consumer Fireworks
Cub Foods West #31334; 2100 Snelling Avenue	Sale of Consumer Fireworks
Walmart #3404; 1960 Twin Lakes Parkway	Sale of Consumer Fireworks
Church of Corpus Christi, 2131 Fairview Avenue N For an event to be held on June 21, 2014	Temporary On-Sale Liquor

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

                                   

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

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows; and as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 9, 2014; and Attachment A entitled, "2014 Capital Improvement Plan Summary - Updated 05/31/2014."

Department	Vendor	Description	Amount	Budget / CIP
Police	Data 911	Data 911 Squad computer support	$5,862.00	Budget
Park Mtnce.	Upper Cut Tree Service	Diseased & hazardous tree removal	25,000.00	Budget
Streets	Upper Cut Tree Service	Diseased & hazardous tree removal	25,000.00	Budget
Police	Affinity Plus Credit Union	Forfeited vehicle: lien payoff	9,319.00	N/A
Police	US Bank	Forfeited vehicle: lien payoff	7,307.21	N/A
Pathways	Century Fence Co.	Split rail fence replacement	5,325.00	CIP
Stormwater	Vonco 11, LLC	Street sweeping dump charges	5,510.00	Budget
Bldg. Mtnce.	Weatherproofing Tech., Inc.	City Hall & N Garage roof	70,878.72	CIP
Bldg. Mtnce.	Tremco, Inc.	City Hall & N Garage roof	36,799.88	CIP
Public Works	Sunram Construction	Retaining wall replacement	51,975.00	Budget
Public Works	RT Vision	Project Management software	9,950.00	Budget

 

 

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

d.            Authorize Acceptance of Cost-Share Funds and Approve Cost-Share Agreement for Dellwood Street Drainage Improvements

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, accepting cost-share funds and approving the cost-share agreement (Attachment A) with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District in the amount of $100,000 for the Dellwood Street Drainage Improvements.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

f.             Authorize New Police Mutual Aid Agreement - Ramsey County

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing the City of Roseville to enter into the Mutual Aid Agreement (Attachment A), with Ramsey County and parties as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

g.            Approve a Resolution to Join the Petition for Rise Creek Watershed District to Establish a Phased Basic Water Management Project

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11151_ (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution of Intent to Join the Amended Petition for the New Brighton/St. Anthony Basic Water Management Project, Rice Creek Watershed District Project 2013-01, to Acknowledge the Allocation of Local Project Costs for the Mirror Lake and Hansen Park Project Components, to Allow Proceeding to Project Phases 2 and 3 for Other Project Components, and Authorizing Amended Petition.'

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

h.            Consider Approving IT Shared Service Agreement with the City of Centerville

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Shared Services Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and the City of Centerville for provision of IT support services by the City of Roseville.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

i.             Approve Agreement for AutoZone Development at 1255 Larpenteur Avenue

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, clarification was provided on Exhibit B (extract of Variance Board meeting minutes) and verification that the 10-day appeal period had already expired.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Agreement (Attachment B) between the City of Roseville and AutoZone Development Corporation, identified as a flood damage liability waiver, waiving and releasing the City of Roseville from any and all claims, liens, demands, etc., arising from or related to any property or personal damage or loss in connection with the property at 1255 Larpenteur Avenue, and relevant to City requirements under City Code Chapter 1017, Shoreland, Wetland and Stormwater Management.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

j.               Set Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of an Off-Sale Liquor License to JE Roseville Liquor 2014, LLC (Cub Liquor)

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, setting a Public Hearing on June 23, 2014 to consider transferring the rights of the off-sale liquor license from RBF, LLC of Wisconsin to JE Roseville Liquor 2014, LLC, for the remainder of the 2014 calendar year.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

k.              Set Public Hearing to Consider the Transfer of an Off-Sale 3.2% Liquor License to Diamond Lake 1994, LLC (Cub Foods)

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, setting a Public Hearing on June 23, 2014 to consider transferring the rights of the 3.2% liquor license to Diamond Lake 1994, LLC, for the remainder of the 2014 calendar year.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

8.   Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

e.            Request by Lakewest and Commers Enterprises Southtown for VACATION of Unused Right-of-Way at 2501 - 2699 Patton Road

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed the request as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that, from the meeting minute excerpt, she was unable to determine if there was resolution regarding the turn radius raised at the Planning Commission meeting. 

 

Councilmember McGehee further questioned if, when reviewing the plat map, there could be an opportunity to require additional green space versus more impervious with this request and thereby enhance the parking lot making it somewhat more pleasant in this industrial area.  While understanding that there was no potential use for the right-of-way being vacated, Councilmember McGehee asked if such a trade-off could be made to enhance the existing property.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that there was little requirement for green space in industrial districts; and he would need to verify the actual percentage required, but since this is intended as a stall build-out, depending on parking lot standards and requirements (e.g. islands), he would check into those code requirements to determine if they would be applicable in this situation.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it would make the entire block look more attractive with additional green space, further opining that, from her review of the property, this parcel may be pushing the 15% limit.

 

McGehee moved to direct staff to look into the impervious surface situation as it is now.

 

Mayor Roe ruled the motion failed for lack of a second.

 

Councilmember Laliberte asked if it was the applicant's intent to apply for the new stormwater credit; and suggested if so, pro-active measures could be suggested to the applicant as part of the negotiations to receive any credits.

 

Mr. Trudgeon responded that he was unsure if that extensive of a conversation had occurred at this time.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that this easement was originally taken for a particular purpose, later determined not to be needed; and questioned if there was any standing to retain it at this point.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Bartholdi responded that it had been determined that there was no longer a need for it and it no longer served of a benefit to the City.

 

Specific to the possible conditioning of the vacation, City Attorney Bartholdi clarified that a vacation was black and white, and no conditions could be applied to a vacation of easement.  Mr. Bartholdi noted that the only question was whether or not retaining the easement going forward was of benefit to the City as originally taken and intended.  Mr. Bartholdi advised that the vote for vacation was simply yes or no, and once vacated, the applicant could consider options for the property at their discretion, but not as a compliance measure required by the City.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11152 (Attachment E) entitled, "A Resolution Vacating a Portion of Unused Right-of-Way at 2501-2699 Patton Road (PF14-009)."

 

Mayor Roe noted that, based on the aerial photo and map included in the RCA, there were design limitations that may actually leave some green space there due to stormwater ponding.  However, Mayor Roe agreed with the City Attorney's advice regarding any conditioning of this vacation.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

9. General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.    Consider Amending City Code Chapter 303: Amusement Devices: Areas and Game Rooms

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.

 

Mr. Miller advised that this code amendment had come up at the request of Chuck-E-Cheese, as they were working through the process to locate a new facility in Roseville in the Sports Authority building at 1750 Highway 36 Service Drive with an addition to the building on the south.  Mr. Miller advised that, internal staff discussions with the Police Department, Planning Department and other City staff, the original rationale for separation was no longer necessary with the updated Zoning Code that would be sufficient to regulate that separation.  Specific to this, Mr. Miller advised that a Conditional Use (CU) would have typically been put in place providing another layer of control to address distance requirements; however, City Planners did not feel a CU was necessary as long as the proposal was consistent with zoning as a regulating tool.  Therefore, Mr. Miller advised that the proposal was to amend two sections of Code 303, as indicated in the RCA; and a revised ordinance (Attachment A) as indicated.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon was unsure why the terminology "video arcade" was specifically mentioned in the CU language; and if someone applied after this change, a pool hall request that may be across from a school would still need a license for gaming devices with City Council approval.

 

Councilmember Etten questioned if the City gained more control by leaving the CU process in place; with Mr. Trudgeon responding that the CU allowed particulars for the use, and it would be reasonable to keep it if the City Council had concerns in retaining controls allowed by a CU.

 

Mayor Roe opined that it didn't make sense from a code writing point of view to have the
CU included in licensing code with no reference to it in zoning code.  Mayor
Roe suggested that, if the CU requirement for this type of use and amendment of
the Table of Uses in zoning code was not approved tonight, it may make more
sense on a short-term basis to change the first part of Section 3 to facilitate
timing for this applicant, and leave Item B in code for now and move to correct
that section of code later.

 

Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this would essentially take out the distance requirement and leave approval by a CU permitting process for now to facilitate the applicant; removing the distance requirement completely.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted Source Comics, located adjacent to Erik's Bike Shop, had a
weekly gaming and game night, and it was situated within a residential
neighborhood.

 

Mr. Miller advised that he would need to follow-up on that situation and use and get back to the City Council at a later date.

 

Mr. Trudgeon noted that this section was designed to address electronic amusement devices, and he would also need to further review the definition and related code requirements.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1468 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 303 (Sections 303.04 and 303.02);" amended to strike language on Line 94 after the first sentence, ending at "game rooms" and to completely strike language from line 97 -114.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this would leave the CU language requirement intact at this time; and requested staff to return with additional information and potential updating of Tables of Use at a later date.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 6:48 p.m.

 

10. Presentations

 

b.            Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting with the City Council

Mayor Roe welcomed commissioners and recognized Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Dave Holt.  Commissioners in attendance included: Chair Holt, Commissioners Lee Diedrick, Randall Doneen, Jerry Stoner, Mary Holt, Nolan Wall, Philip Gelbach and Terrance Newby.

 

Various attachments were provided as part of the background and discussion items, including: Attachment A (Goals 2013-2015); Attachment B (City Attorney Opinion dated 3/14/14 - Park Board Legislation); Attachment C (Research and analysis of a Park Board dated 5/7/13); Attachment D (SWOT analysis report on Park Board dated 5/6/14); and Attachment E (Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes dated 5/6/14).

 

Chair Holt advised that each commissioner would be speaking on various joint discussion topics as listed in the RCA.

 

Volunteer Coordinator/Enhanced Volunteer Participation

Commissioners Lee Diedrick and Mary Holt thanked the City Council for hiring Volunteer Coordinator, opining that it was great timing as the Parks Renewal Program was initiated, anticipating great results from  coordinating volunteer efforts.

 

Collaboration with Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC)

Commissioner Doneen reported on the meeting of a subgroup of P & R and PWETC commissions to discuss pathway extensions, and the work done by the PWETC to build on the original 2008 Pathway Master Plan, along with those needs identified as part of the park constellations during the Parks Master Plan process.

 

Commissioner Doneen noted that it was interesting to see the difference in ranking trail and pathway priorities based on two different sets of criteria; with both groups in support of trails on County Road B2 and the trail (shoulder) connection west of Cleveland Avenue along County Road B. 

 

Commissioner Doneen opined that overall it was a good collaborative effort and he appreciated working with the PWETC.

 

Communication Efforts

Commissioner Gelbach noted that he had met with Communications Manager Garry Bowman and  Assistant Parks Director Jill Anfang, as well as attending a meeting of the Community Engagement Commission and discussions with Commissioner Gary Grefenberg of that group, and would continue to follow their meeting minutes.  Commissioner Gelbach stressed the importance of communication efforts in including everyone in what was being done, and looked forward to a good relationship with these parties. 

 

Commissioner Gelbach advised that he would like the Parks & Recreation Commissioners to meet more often with the City Council, similar to a schedule like the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), on a quarterly basis if possible to enhance that communication and provide more timely reports.

 

Chair Holt concurred, noting it went beyond communications, but would keep the City Council in the loop and up-to-date, as well as keeping the Commission on task as activities begin to move forward at a fast pace, allowing for course corrections as needed.

 

Parks and Recreation Renewal Program

With recent package approval by the City Council, Commissioner Stoner asked that they continue to provide feedback (e.g. wireless communications and access considerations) to tell the Commission their areas of interest. 

 

Commissioner Stoner thanked the City Council for their attendance and support at the recent Parks Renewal Program Kick-off Event; and asked that they continue to alert the Commission to any questions and/or comments.

 

Natural Resources Program including Forestry

Commissioner Doneen noted the advantages of tying together the Master Plan volunteer projects, volunteer coordinator, and natural resource programs of the community.  As an example, Commissioner Doneen addressed the recent Buckthorn removal project at Reservoir Woods, and removal of brush for shipping.  While a small project and not well-advertised with the Commission for some reason failing on every communication resource available to them, Commissioner Doneen noted that over twenty volunteers still showed up to help.  Commissioner Doneen opined that this was indicative of the importance the community placed on their natural resources in area parks and Master plan efforts to-date.

 

Commissioner Doneen noted that this created a concern he'd heard from the community of the
need for management of those natural resources in the City environment, which they had not found active or adequate to-date; and therefore the inclusion in the Parks Renewal Program package of a specific program and the need for their restoration.

 

Commissioner Doneen advised that he'd long advocated that natural resource needs be funded annually to avoid big time expenses or their further degradation, through effective capitalization. 

 

Commissioner Doneen asked that the City Council give that serious consideration moving forward, opining that some of the City's most valuable assets are its trees and
forest, specifically the current dangers to Ash Trees, and the need to remove
diseased trees, but also replace them not just for aesthetics, but also for
their benefits for energy conservation, soils and water quality.  Commissioner
Doneen suggested that proactive planning be done and monies set aside annually
as originally intended.  Commissioner Doneen respectfully asked that the City
Council include natural resources in their long-term capital improvement
program (CIP). 

 

Commissioner Doneen noted that staff had done a good job of leveraging the Department of Agriculture for funding, but in the Commission's dual capacity as the City Tree
Board, they recommended moving forward from the basic Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
plan; and ramp up and plant trees in advance of any infestation.  Commissioner
Doneen suggested that the City move from its limited forestry efforts with a
one part-time forestry employee, and opined that it would prove a wise
investment to increase the position to serve as a general resource management
person and provide expertise with tree preservation as the City redevelops
parcels with existing mature trees.  As the Tree Board, Commissioner Doneen
stated that they would be more than willing to engage with the Planning Commission
in cross-efforts and endeavors for a reasonable tree preservation plan.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked Commissioner Doneen if, in his involvement with the Natural Resources and Trail System (NRATS) portion of the Renewal Program if he saw continued work with the PWETC on some issues (e.g. water quality and tree preservation), recognizing that there were commissioners on the PWETC that were passionate about those topics as well.

 

Commissioner Doneen recognized that potential, but having worked with that group already, opined that his best sense was that a specific charge should be provided rather than an ongoing relationship, whether with the Parks & Recreation, PWETC, and/or Planning Commission, and at the discretion of the City Council for a specific task and recommendation.

 

Chair Holt concurred, noting that the NRATS was looking for a more proactive approach and specific direction from the City Council to develop action steps.

 

Community Center

Commissioner Terrance (Terry) Newby noted that there had been considerable discussion in the past, including public surveys in 2011 and 2014, all identifying strong public support for the idea of a community center. 

 

Commissioner Newby opined that the next step for the Commission was guidance from the City Council as to whether they were charged with moving forward to pursue this further, or if it should remain on the back burner as not being a top priority.  Given the expanse of the issue and amount of time it could consume, Commissioner Newby sought direction in relationship to the other priorities of the Commission at this time.

 

Over time, Councilmember Willmus noted that the City Council was aware of the interest and survey data providing a fairly consistent message from the community for a community center.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he'd be interested in learning more about how the City would propose to close the operational funding gap.  Even with the City of Shoreview and Maplewood community centers, and their business models, Councilmember Willmus noted the annual financial gap (e.g. $300,000 for Shoreview Community Center) and how those gaps could be addressed if the project were to move forward; or how to offset that gap to keep the facility going.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted that, as long as she'd been a resident, this had been an issue; and that was the reason for her being outspoken with the Parks Renewal Program, that the buildings should have been funneled into a community center for one building that was available and convenient for all residents.  However, since that wasn't done, Councilmember McGehee noted that now instead of one area, there were six separate buildings to support, operate and maintain, even though she didn't hear that preference expressed by taxpayers and survey data.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she couldn't see much hunger from the
taxpayers for more bonding or increased taxes following the most recent bonding
effort.

 

Having talked to the City of Shoreview about their apparent annual funding gap, Councilmember McGehee advised that she understood that it was a deliberate attempt to keep their membership at a price point so all residents could belong, and to continue to leave it as is and provide public support to promote those efforts. Councilmember McGehee opined that this discussion should have occurred earlier to respond to the community's wants, needs and expectations for a community center versus the buildings being constructed.  While not having heard from the community at large, Councilmember McGehee opined that the 2014 survey results would indicate to her that the natural resource component was the second highest, as in the 2011 survey as well; and many things now being financed are related to maintenance issues that have been sorely neglected to-date; and reiterated her previous concerns that a maintenance plan was needed going forward.

 

Councilmember Laliberte recognized that this had been talked about for a long time; but noted that everyone envisioned a community center differently as to what it offered.  While survey respondents indicate they want a community center, Councilmember Laliberte asked what they actually wanted, since some of those amenities may already be available in the community but not used sufficiently.  In talking to a representative from the City of New Brighton recently, Councilmember Laliberte noted that they were looking at major improvements and investments to their community center, as they were finding that they lacked amenities, causing the community to go to LA Fitness, and other nicer, newer facilities.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested that Roseville already had four community center-type buildings that are underutilized, and when someone wants a community, there was a need to determine what features they were seeking.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she needed a clearer picture of that, and such information would prove helpful to her future decision-making about a community center.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that discussion on how to fund a community center came up a few years ago, with the actual construction discussed through a local sales tax option, which has since filtered away.  Councilmember Etten stated that he looked at long-term costs differently than the actual construction of a community center; with additional information needed on how to put the pieces together.  As part of the Master Planning process, Councilmember Etten noted that some components were looked at, but there was no formal survey about what pieces were most valued by residents (e.g. indoor walking track); and while some of those amenities may already be in place in other facilities, recognized that some may also have certain limitations (e.g. walking track at the OVAL).  Councilmember Etten opined that the important thing was to nurture all ages in the community in different ways and bring them together in a common space.

 

Mayor Roe echoed comments of his fellow Councilmembers, noting the difference in the upfront cost for construction and ongoing operating cost, while also understanding the high potential for a subsidy for long-term maintenance and upkeep and understanding overall benefits to the community.  Regarding the City's
financial picture, Mayor Roe noted that the community had just begun paying for
the Park Renewal Program bonds; however, conversely they were 3-4 years from
paying off the City Hall/Public Works Building improvement bonds, which may create
a potential fund to cover other infrastructure needs.  As a way to address
local sales taxes, Mayor Roe noted that the legislature looked at regional
benefits in providing tax levy support; and suggested that shifting the OVAL to
that regional support as a regional facility may open up more funding to
operate that and shift available funding to a community center.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that the Commission take those things brought forward tonight by individual Councilmembers, with the charge for them to come up with more concrete answers to look at more seriously in an effort to  understand the financial impacts to residents and businesses in the community.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested having discussions with communities surrounding Roseville that had community centers and/or private enterprises providing the preferred amenities, and determine how to partner with them, or avoid competing with those private entities.  Councilmember Laliberte again opined that the past needs of the community may be met with the new park buildings under construction.

 

In speaking for senior citizens in the community, Councilmember McGehee opined that they didn't go to the private entities, but more often went to the community centers in Maplewood or Shoreview that were more geared to the older community with classes specific to their comfort level, further opining that those  needs were not being met in the commercial environment.

 

Chair Holt, in recognizing the public engagement discussions through the Master Plan process, admitted that it wasn't easy to define what actual amenities were desired, since there was a multitude of interests.  In addressing costs, Chair Holt advised that the Commission, as part of the Park Renewal Program, had looked at them quite extensively, and the cost of a community center as envisioned was more than the entire bonding program.  Not to discount the desire and/or need for a community center, Chair Holt realistically advised that there was no funding available for one, and providing a community center was not as easy as we'd
like it to be, with so many generations in the community needing to be
satisfied. 

 

Given the extensive work required, Chair Holt asked that the City Council provide direction or a charge if they wanted the Commission to further study this and return with that information.  Regarding the maintenance plan comments by Councilmember McGehee, Chair Holt advised that this was an important piece of the Renewal Program to maintain what was being constructed.  Chair Holt advised that the Commission had no intention of not providing for such a maintenance plan, which he hoped the City Council would support, to address planning and capitalization efforts to avoid what led to the degradation of existing facilities in the first place by lack of support.  Chair Holt advised that those numbers were being developed and would be put together as part of an upcoming annual and long-term CIP.

 

Local Option Sales Tax

Chair Holt noted that this had been brought to the Commission in the past as a goal and as a potential funding for a community center.  Chair Holt advised that the Commission was again seeking guidance from the City Council as to whether pursue the legislative process, which was also time-consuming.  If the City Council wanted the Commission to look at it further this year, Chair Holt asked that they provide specific direction to the Commission as a request for more information.

 

Park Board Consideration

Chair Holt noted that the City Council had tasked the Commission several years ago to review and consider a Park Board versus a Commission, which had taken two years to accomplish (Attachment C - research and analysis of a Park Board dated May 7, 2013).

 

Commissioner Wall addressed this issue, including the necessary steps to establish a Park Board and the powers governing such a board under MN Statute, as detailed in the March 14, 2014 City Attorney opinion (Attachment B).  Commissioner Nolan further referenced their discussion (Attachment D entitled, "Discussion regarding the legislative action to change from a commission to a board," dated May 6, 2014); and the subsequent motion passed unanimously that same date by seven Commission members in attendance.

 

Commissioner Nolan noted that this would be a significant and involved process; and asked for the City Council's consideration, or any request for additional information.

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Commission for their work to-date, and information she'd
received from watching their meetings and the information provided by the
Commission, recognizing that it was well thought out.  With all that being
said, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was still hesitant about creating
a Park Board due to the creation of a separate taxing authority and further removed one step from residents for non-elected officials to make decisions.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that she understood the rationale based on past history of why such a board was desired, but remained hesitant.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she'd prefer to meet more often with the Commission as suggested to stay on top of things of concern to them as a starting point if it was the desire of the City Council rather than establishing Park Board.  Councilmember Laliberte opined if by meeting more often, especially with initiation of the Park Renewal Program projects, it would avoid the reason why a $19 million Park Renewal Project was necessary to address things done being done when they should have been done.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's comments for meeting more often, stating that she would not favor a Park Board at this time for many of those same reasons, for the need for the City Council to retain that direct relationship with residents and avoid the autonomy of a Board and its own taxing authority.  Councilmember McGehee opined that parks are a resource for the entire community, and when the Master Plan process was underway, stated that she personally supported a referendum and opined that the City failed its residents in not pursuing a referendum.  Even though 3,000 people participated in the Master Plan process, Councilmember McGehee noted that this was less than 10% of the overall Roseville population; with the 2014 community survey indicating that 70% of the respondents didn't know about the Park Renewal
Program, even though there were residents and the reason for them not using the
parks might mean that their needs are not being met even though a large
expenditure of public money had been made in the park system. 

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she felt strongly that more public airing of the Renewal Program was needed to determine what the real issues were, but what was being done now and the subsequent maintenance needed for those buildings, were not addressed or supported in either the 2011 or 2014 community surveys.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she would like to meet more often and have more detail on the projects underway to address the different points of view of individual Councilmembers, and to have a give and take discussion about projects and ongoing maintenance, allowing the Commission and City Council to keep track of resident needs and the use of public funds to meet those needs.

 

After having participated for years in the public airing of issues in his former role on the Parks & Recreation Commission, Councilmember Etten opined that nothing in Roseville's history had been as well-vetted as this Park Renewal Program process.  Councilmember Etten opined that to state that it hadn't gone through a public process was not correct.  Councilmember Etten admitted that he had been caught off guard by community survey responses about their perceived lack of knowledge about the Renewal Program, but while not sure what had led to that, suggested that it may have been the label of the program from 'ParkMaster Plan" to "Park Renewal Program."  Given the number of meetings held in
community sectors, and additional educational pieces and meetings around the
program, Councilmember Etten expressed confidence that the process had been thorough
and informative community-wide.

 

Specific to the creation of a Park Board, and the many discussions to-date, as well as requirements under the Optional Plan B City Government of Roseville, Councilmember Etten recognized that there would be a rigorous process to move such an effort forward.  Councilmember Etten suggested the potential for partnering with a neighboring city (e.g. Falcon Heights and/or Lauderdale) to create a regional board, or partnership of the City and School District for joint facilities, but across levels of government and jurisdictions; giving consideration to the use of local sales taxes for that regional effort.  Councilmember Etten opined that this would serve in a grander way to bring lots of pieces together to make it happen, and get a Park Board operational to work jointly with joint funding available.

 

Councilmember Willmus concurred with the comments of Councilmember Etten, noting that the Park Board concept originated during the Park & Recreation Master Plan process; and noted his enthusiasm to look at the concept and how it worked in other communities, and how it may provide a different path to follow.  However, based on the process outlined in tonight's meeting materials, Councilmember
Willmus advised that it involved a totally different path for implementation
than he originally thought.  Councilmember Willmus advised that he found it
interesting to hear comments from his colleagues comparing this to creation of
the HRA, since similar insecurities and hesitations were brought up in creating
that body as well.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted that many good things
that had come from that collaborative planning effort that the City Council
would have been hard pressed to accomplish, and had become a great advantage to
the City and its residents.

 

Recognizing that there were many pros and cons to creation of such a Board, Councilmember Willmus noted that he disagreed that there may be less accountability, since even the HRA "similar to a Park Board" came to the City Council to approve its levy, which was the City Council's ultimate control measure.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he'd like to explore further whether a partnership with other community was a feasible avenue to consider, as suggested by Councilmember Etten.

 

As the Commission frequently heard the City Council speak on operational efficiencies, and in looking to potential partnerships with other communities beyond shared programming currently done, and as the City continued to struggle with the question of a community center, Councilmember Willmus suggested opportunities to look to Shoreview or Maplewood for shared opportunities as well.  Councilmember Willmus thanked the Commission for their work to-date on the Park Board issue and discussions, and opined that it should remain on the table as a potential option down the road.

 

Since this Park Board issue came up, Mayor Roe stated that he'd struggled with it, even though appreciating the work, research and comparisons done by the Commission to-date.  In using the HRA comparison as a model reference, Mayor Roe opined that was a minor portion of the City's annual budget and staffing needs compared to the significant chunk of the budget represented by the Parks & Recreation Department. 

 

Mayor Roe stated that he also had concerns with such a significant part of the City's operations not being under direct control of the City Council, City Manager and the process used to manage the rest of the City's government.  Mayor Roe noted that he found this troubling, not because he didn't think the Park Board would
do a good job, but for him it created too much distinction that would create
more problems than it solved.  However, Mayor Roe stated that he did like the
idea of joint powers agreements for specific facilities, and joint efforts and
projects with other communities.  Mayor Roe advised that his preference would
be not to pursue establishment of a Park Board further, but to seriously look
at those opportunities.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City was now making significant strides in addressing previously inadequate funding of Park & Recreation maintenance and infrastructure needs, especially in getting those CIP needs out over a twenty-year span.  While that process needed to continue improving, Mayor Roe opined that part of his response was based on the need to continue those efforts and recognize them in the overall funding picture.   Mayor Roe stated that he liked the idea of meeting more often, and suggested that regarding the CIP projections, the natural resources component was an excellent place to address those community needs and program them accordingly.

 

Overall, Mayor Roe stated that his response would be to use the tools already available and to the best of our ability.  In terms of a future City Council not being as responsive to Park & Recreation needs, Mayor Roe opined that they needed to be held accountable by the community as they served or sought to serve on the City Council, especially in recognizing how parks & recreation aspects fit into the overall community and were not a second-class portion of the City of Roseville.

 

Regarding unification efforts, Councilmember McGehee opined that parks was an important part of the community and should be considered an essential service, and planning for its needs was an integral part of the City, not off on its own.  Councilmember McGehee also supported the idea of joint powers agreements, especially for the southwest portion of Roseville, who frequent the Falcon Heights community park system, given its location directly across the street, and a way to address that neighborhood's needs rather than expending funds to acquire a
small and inadequate space in Roseville for that area.  However, Councilmember
McGehee noted that Roseville residents had no way to access that building, and
it may be nice to be able to do so to provide a meeting space for residents in southwest Roseville.

 

Chair Holt wanted to ensure that the tone of joint meetings of the Commission and City Council were not intended to be "us" against "you," and stated his intent to change that perspective, since the Commission saw itself as an extension of and working for the City Council, given the City Council's limited time and busy agendas dissuading their ability to delve into major issues to any great depth.  Chair Holt noted that the City Council tasked the Commission to research this, which they did at length, and as Councilmember McGehee stated, considered itself to be an essential service to the community and would like to be positioned as such and strongly valued throughout the community, and expressed the Commission's interest in promoting that going forward.

 

Commissioner Stoner stated that one of his concerns in the current system was about transparency.  From his perspective, and using the community center as an example, Commissioner Stoner noted that the City Council had asked the Commission to survey the community for what they wanted, and they wanted many things, which had been reported back to the City Council; and based on the other financial needs of the City, the City Council said "No, it costs too much money."  At that point, the Commission went back to the drawing board to streamline the proposal and determine what could be eliminated.  However, then the taxpayer doesn't like spending money on a community center and tells the
City Council that, while the other side talks to the Commission with their
desire to have a center.  Under that scenario, Commissioner Stoner questioned
where the transparency was in that process, opining that it would be better to
have all those discussions contained in one place where both sides were engaged
versus a back and forth dialogue.  Also, Commissioner Stoner also noted the
many issues covered on a City Council agenda that limited dialogue, in addition
to half of the year being devoted to the annual budget and levy process,
further eliminating timely discussions and creating more problems with
transparency.  Commissioner Stoner spoke in support of a "one stop shop," that allow all voices to be heard and identify a specific pool of money to be spend on Parks & Recreation programs and services, and the need to then pare things back with public comment on what was kept or what was out, which would serve to keep the community happy to know that everyone wouldn't get everything they wanted.

 

With additional comments regarding transparency, Chair Holt concurred that it was key, and the desire of the Commission was to make the process even more transparent to the public, and that transparency was a big issue that he felt a Park Board could address from that perspective versus the current Commission, allowing the public to see annually what was being appropriated to the Park Board.  Chair Holt assured Councilmembers that their recommendation was not intended as a control issue, but simply to make things more transparent to the public, with the control obviously remaining at the City Council level, with the Park Board focused on maintaining that essential service that was valued by all.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she didn't disagree with the transparency issue; but with previous engagement issues, she remained  concerned that some decision-making would be made at the Park Board level with an empty room versus a more publicly perceived City Council meeting.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that she needed to make that connection even though she wasn't confident all the
engagement and communication components had been addressed sufficiently.

 

Specific to their research about a Park Board, Commissioner Doneen noted that they varied throughout the state, along with their duties which were established by the City Council, and asked that this be given consideration as well, if there were specific concerns or aspects that the City Council wanted to remain involved in.  Commissioner Doneen noted that it wasn't a "one fits all" aspect for a Park Board, and the City Council could decide what was needed and which areas would be more of a focus of the Park Board or for the City Council.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed appreciation of the Commission's work and expressed
understanding of the transparency issue; reiterating her support for a
referendum on this and ultimate disappointment that it was not done.  Councilmember
McGehee stated that she saw that as an important engagement tool to educate the
public before they went to the polls, similar to the City Hall/Public Works
Building referendum, with changes made to the original plan as part of that
process, and openly discussed as part of the "People's City Hall."  Councilmember
McGehee expressed her strong support of that process, but was unsure how to fit
that into the operation of a Park Board.  From her perspective with large expenditures
of public funds, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was critical to have a
referendum to engage citizens and their opportunity to weigh in later.

 

Mayor Roe noted that a referendum was required and clearly outlined by state statute for bonding in some circumstances, and that was the determining factor, and referendums were not based on the amount of money proposed to be spent.  

 

Specific to establishment of a Park Board, Mayor Roe opined that it could solve things; but consideration of a community center was a specific project and there were ways available to solve funding issues without a Park Board.

 

In conclusion, Mayor Roe suggested discussion continue at the next joint meeting, with the consensus of the City Council to schedule joint meetings quarterly.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:48 p.m.

 

c.            Receive Community Survey Results

Communications Manager Garry Bowman provided summary results of the community survey conducted in April of 2014, and as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.  Mr. Bowman noted that this was a scientific telephone survey of 400 Roseville residents, divided into four quadrants: north or south of Highway 36 and east or west of Snelling Avenue.  Mr. Bowman noted that those delineations may have somewhat skewed results due to heavier residential and/or commercial areas.  Mr. Bowman advised that the demographic and age mix of the survey closely matched the 2010 census.

 

Mr. Bowman presented the key survey takeaways, with the presentation Mr. Bowman advised that, if interested, the Morris Leatherman firm would be happy to do a complete review of the survey as an alternative "brown bag" lunch for staff, the City Council and interested members of the public; or at a future City Council meeting at the discretion of the City Council.  Mr. Bowman advised that the firm would be providing an Executive Summary within the next few months that would further analyze results.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, TABLING this discussion for a future City Council Work session. 

 

Councilmember Willmus began to move to table this discussion to a future City Council work session.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman advised that he was preparing a news release with attachments for Tuesday morning, June 10, 2014 for the City's website and other sources.

 

With interest expressed by Councilmember McGehee in pursuing the brown bag lunch version and the official presentation at a City Council meeting, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that their contract was for one or the other option, but not both.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in having a presentation by Morris Leatherman, but also expressed her interest in the City Council reviewing the survey question by question as it set its priorities in order not to shortchange that process and justify the updated information now available.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded to schedule a Work session designated for this item for the purpose of setting priorities; and have Morris Leatherman present at that meeting for in-depth consideration of any questions;.

 

As a point of information, Councilmember Willmus requested a specific date for the work session.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that, if the City Council wanted to remain on their regular schedule for the Work session versus a special meeting, the July 7, 2014 meeting's agenda was very light at this time, with the only business item
scheduled being a joint meeting with the HRA.  However, Mr. Trudgeon suggested
that some flexibility remain for other topics that may need addressed and yet
to come forward that that meeting, but to retain the survey as the main topic.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Communications Manager Bowman confirmed that the Executive Summary would be available by then; and advised that he would contact both Mr. Morris and Mr. Leatherman to determine which if either would be available for the July 7^th meeting.

 

By consensus, the motion was amended to include the specific date of July 7, 2014, for the proposed work session.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

11.      Public Hearings

 

d.    Public Hearing to Acknowledge the Expenditure of Tax-Exempt Funds for the University of Northwestern - St. Paul

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the requested action as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.  Mr. Miller advised that representatives of the University of Northwestern-St. Paul were present tonight to discuss the projects and seek local City Council support to expend some of those proceeds in the community.

 

Councilmember McGehee reviewed the process for seeking a municipal stamp of approval and related administrative fee to allow the University to purchase bonds at a tax exempt rate.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that the purpose was to provide municipal approval for the University to proceed for the specified uses; however, he clarified that the City would not be collecting a fee as there was no cost to the City to do this, and a fee would only be received if the City were issuing and administering the bonds which in this case the City is not.  Mr. Miller advised that the requested council action assures that the University has the authority to borrow money at a lower rate, similar to a municipal rate, to save dollars on their bond issue by having the same ability to secure that more advantageous financing to lower their debt costs, the same concept as with public bond issues.

 

Douglas Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer, University of Northwestern

Mr. Schroeder briefly stated that the University currently had three tax exempt bond issues.  In the process of securing financing for more bond projects, and with significant law changes anticipated in 2016 and 2017 (Dodd Frank laws) and significant refinancing costs forced on current letters of credit backing up those bonds, Mr. Schroeder stated that with the costs in financing this bond issue, it was thought to be in the best interest for the University to recombine and put the bonds in a different package.  Mr. Schroeder advised that they anticipated $6 million in new financing for the current projects, including acquisition of the current County Inn and Suites and conversion of that facility into student housing, but refinancing their entire $25 million portfolio.

 

As stated by Mr. Miller, Mr. Schroeder advised that tax exempt bonding is available to the University as a non-profit, and if they were not required to pay higher interest rates, they wouldn't need to raise tuition.  Since the University, like most colleges, is facing declining enrollment, with staff and employee compensation adjustments only given twice over the last five years, Mr. Schroeder opined that the University thought this step allowed them to remain competitive and be good stewards.

 

Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at approximately 8:10 p.m. for the purpose of acknowledging the expenditure of tax-exempt funds for the University of Northwestern - St. Paul.

 

Public Comment

Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan questioned why the City would agree to the continuing degradation of his neighborhood by allowing the proposed funding, when it had significant impacts on his property value.  Mr. Callaghan opined that he would not be able to hold an open house in anticipation of selling his home if there was a game going on at the University due to noise levels.  Mr. Callaghan opined that he could see no public purpose in this whole thing, and therefore, why do it; and further opined that the City needed to protect where it stood on public bonds and financing for the government to do its work, with this proposal removing $26 million from the government. 

 

Since he has found no recourse regarding this negative impact on his house, Mr. Callaghan stated that he may have to seek legal remedies; opining that Northwestern had been a bad neighbor for twenty-five years, and even though he continued to bring complaints forward, nothing was ever done about it.  Mr. Callaghan stated that the University was not someone he considered a good neighbor, and he didn't want them as one.  Mr. Callaghan spoke in further opposition to taking
the County Inn off the tax rolls, even though when that facility was built with Tax Increment Financing District 13 financing, they promised it would remain on the tax rolls for thirty years after the TIF bonds were paid off, and even though they were not yet paid off, they were making this request.  Mr. Callaghan opined that he found the University not to be a trustful place, with too many promises made over the years that they hadn't kept.

 

Kirby Stahl, Roseville resident

Mr. Stahl expressed his appreciation for the City Council's consideration of this request, and asked for their support.  Mr. Stahl stated that Northwestern had been a constant thread in his life and one of the reasons he'd relocated to Roseville in 1991, and as a Northwestern graduate in 1995, had seen the training and education he'd received at Northwestern launch his career in the Twin Cities, 12 of which had been as an employee at Northwestern.  Mr. Stahl opined that the college and radio station make a concerted effort to engage students in the Roseville community and the community in college activities and events, as well as making significant efforts to give back.  Mr. Stahl noted the number of students and alumni involved in those efforts, including athletic venues available for community use throughout the year, and a major draw for students and alumni to draw to area motels and restaurants.  Mr. Stahl noted that the college believed in partnering with the community; and opined that the growth of the college will benefit not only in monetary ways, but through their "service first" mentality. 

 

Gerry Philby, 3010 Fairview Avenue

Specific to the noise complaints, as a thirty-seven year resident in close proximity to the campus, Mr. Philby noted his observation of the University's response and reduction in that noise over the years.  Specific to the tax-exempt status, and location of the current County Inn & Suites, Mr. Philby stated that other decisions could have been made in the past that would have removed that from the tax rolls earlier; and further noted that Pippins Restaurant would remain in place as a taxable entity providing a tax base for the City and adding value to the City.  Mr. Philby reviewed other improvements and renovations over the years that the University had initiated that cleaned up areas of the community and advantages provided overall.  Mr. Philby opined that he saw this as an advantage for the City and highly recommended their support of the request.

 

Steve Gjerdingen, 2211 N Albert Street

As an employee of Northwestern for the last seven years, Mr. Gjerdingen opined that this current investment by the University was a wise idea to enhance the community of Roseville and increase good activities in the area, allowing for increased interaction between students and the community in this area of Roseville.  Mr. Gjerdingen opined that improved upkeep of the Country Inn property (e.g. plowing) and walkability of this area would benefit everyone through partnering with the University, bringing a net gain into this equation.  Mr. Gjerdingen also noted that additional tax based through the motel's move across Snelling,
replacing a vacant restaurant that had hurt property values, and provided a
good exchange for all parties.

 

Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 8:23 p.m.,

 

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11153 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, Approving the Issuance of Public Finance Authority Revenue Bonds in a Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of $26,000,000 for the Purposes of Financing and Refinancing the Costs of Acquisition, Construction, Improvement, Renovation and Equipping of Certain Educational Facilities of the University of Northwestern - St. Paul and other Matters Relating Thereto."

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schroeder reviewed the refinancing, to be issued in Wisconsin and owned by a bank with the lower interest, tax-exempt bonds more favorable for the bank's ownership, and those lowered costs passed onto Northwestern, due to their non-profit status.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion, not because of the University, but as a general principle and personal policy to support public and government entity use of tax-exempt bond status as originally designed.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that this followed an example of funding over the years with the City of Roseville issuing bonds on behalf of entities for tax-exempt housing projects in Roseville, as a pass-through.  Mayor Roe noted that this in no way impacted the City's ability as issuing agency to bond for its own purposes, and the statement that it took away from the public entity was not accurate.  Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to spend the money and assist in obtaining a lower interest rate to take advantage of this funding mechanism, and further opined that to oppose it didn't make sense.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee

Motion carried.

 

12.      Budget Items

 

13.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.    Consider University of Northwestern Land Use TEXT AMENDMENTS to City Code

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this joint text amendment request of the University of Northwestern and the City of Roseville Community Development Department, as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.  Mr. Paschke clarified that approval of the request would address four related actions:

1)  Change the definition from "dormitory" to "student housing;"

2)  Determine how and where student housing is allowed as a permitted or conditioned use in Community Business and Regional Business Districts;

3)  Identify the standards or requirements pertaining to re-sue of a building or new construction in those districts; and

4)  Support proposed changes to existing housing types in Neighborhood Business and Community Mixed Use Districts.

 

Councilmember Willmus discussed parking requirements (Section 1010.12.E) for student housing and how they differed for hotel parking requirements as to the number of stalls; the lodging threshold being used compared to student housing thresholds; how to address overflow parking in the neighborhood as a result of this student housing; and whether Northwestern had an overall parking plan to address those issues.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that residential parking for multi-family building parking was determined by the number of bedrooms and visitor stalls calculated on the number of units; and for lodging uses, the code talks about the number of overall rooms or units and the number of customers and/or employees.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that the site had 126 existing stalls, and through written agreement with Pippins, 80 were for hotel use, or one stall per room, and 44 stalls reserved for the restaurant; with the student housing (lodging) use requiring 86 spaces and 37 for the restaurant for a total of 123 stalls.   Since they now have 126, with a multi-family standard for 79 units for 99 spaces for housing and 37 for the restaurant for a total of 136 stalls overall, Mr. Trudgeon noted they would be 10 stalls short  of using a multi-family calculation or creating a new standard.  However, Mr. Trudgeon stated that he thought Northwestern had plans to limit parking on the site.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need to address this within current parking standards, and if deemed necessary a future direction could be given to staff to pursue future considerations on parking calculations.

 

In Section 12010.12.E.b, Councilmember McGehee noted the Sienna Green housing that provided for no sprinkler system or ADA requirements, and stated that she did not want to support any re-use that would not require meeting those requirements.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that, permitted use versus not permitted or conditional, it made sense to make it a conditional use, given the lower impact to the neighborhood in this location.  However, if the same situation were being considered on the east side of Snelling Avenue, with a higher impact to residential properties, Councilmember Etten opined that it may be preferred and influence the City Council decision to determine that impact through a conditional use versus permitted use.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the apartments on the east side of Snelling Avenue used for student housing were classified as multi-family at this time since there is no current category of "student housing."  Mayor Roe noted that student housing standards would then apply to new uses, with pre-existing uses legal, non-conforming at that time, and not under conditional use status either, with that change being prospective.

 

Councilmember Etten opined that it would influence conditional uses in the future if more proposals came forward.

 

Councilmember McGehee expressed her agreement with Councilmember Etten, opining that conditional use versus permitted use was preferred.

 

City Manager Trudgeon clarified that the requested action is that a Conditional Use would be required for a student housing use, no matter what district in which it was located.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested another option to create a distinction of "C/P" in the Table of Uses, for a conditional use adjacent to LDR or MDR zoning, but a permitted use when adjacent to commercial zoning.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of conditional use across the board to address sprinklers and handicapped accessibility.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed interest in hearing from Northwestern on parking, opining that student housing was becoming so limited on campus that students were spilling over onto city streets, causing more issues in neighborhoods than this may actually relieve.

 

Mayor Roe asked to focus on the conditional use aspect first, then parking.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed interest in pursuing the conditional use across all districts, which he would be open to at this time.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus and Etten spoke in support of "conditional use" across the board versus permitted uses in some instances and conditional uses in others.

 

While not feeling strongly about it, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her understanding for the thought process of the Council majority.

 

Therefore, Mayor Roe advised that there appeared to be majority preference for "Conditional Use" status for all zoning districts.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that this provided the City Council an opportunity to weigh in as proposals come up versus administrative issuing of a permit, which he found attractive.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke advised that the Country Inn had ramps to get into the building and elevators, so he presumed it was ADA compliant; however, through the building permit process, a certain percentage of upgrades would be needed to make the rooms compliant per those building code, but he was unsure about the sprinkler status.

 

Regarding concerns with this use and its location, Mr. Paschke advised that the City Council could create conditions as part of this process versus general conditions, which would create a basic process needing approval; but would create special and distinct conditions to review that use against all districts to make the process more meaningful for the Planning Commission and City Council.

 

Mayor Roe noted that creation of such conditions may not be feasible tonight, but creating a base set of conditions in the future to apply to all potential uses may be beneficial for future reference.

 

On Table 1005-1 under Civic/Institutional Uses, Councilmember Laliberte questioned the NP status for two CMU Districts that were not related to student housing, and staff's rationale for that recommendation.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that the only CMU District at this time was in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and the intent was to reserve that for tax-paying entities, since non-profits would not be paying into TIF or redevelopment funds, which were difficult to come by.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted previous discussions for secondary schools that are for-profit that could be suitable to relocate in Twin Lakes.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that she was not prepared to make changes in Civic/Institution uses while those discussions about CMU in Twin Lakes were still active, and would prefer to stick with student housing only at this time.

 

Mayor Roe confirmed that a distinction had been made, as well as adding office-based uses, similar to the previous Northwestern proposal for re-use of the former Edina Realty building for such a use. 

 

On a related note, Mayor Roe questioned why to permit campus use in a Regional Business District as a commercial business versus rezoning to Institutional, at which time a decision could be addressed for non- versus for-profit uses.  Mayor Roe suggested delaying changes to Civic and Institutional uses on Table 1005-1.

 

Roe suggested tabling any changes to Table 1005-1 in the "Residential-Family Living" use category.  Mayor Roe stated that, to a certain degree, he needed to understand staff's rationale better, and why they didn't recommend changing it to
conditional for attached single-family or multi-family in those areas, with
others changed from permitted to not permitted.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that most smaller corner nodes are Neighborhood Business designation for small or medium parcels, with the rationale that some smaller projects or uses (e.g. row homes or town homes) may be suitable for those areas.  If the designation was CU, it allowed a determination on whether or not they were appropriate.  As it relates to changing more apartments uses to permitted in commercial districts, Mr. Paschke advised that staff saw no difference in that than in mixed use development, allowing housing as a part of the redevelopment with commercial uses on the lower level and rentals above, which was a goal of the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that part of the discussion be deferred as well, since it was unrelated to tonight's discussion; with consensus of the body to delay consideration of changes to the Multi-family use category at this time.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe clarified that, in determining conditional or permitted uses, he considered the adjacent use: if single-family, to look at conditional use, and if in a commercial area not having the same level of concern, he could support permitted use status; however, he advised that he didn't have a strong point of view on the matter, and would consider conditional use across the board.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten related to student housing standards (line 140, c), Mr. Paschke duly noted the maximum height of 45' in this section, while the
remainder of code says 40 feet for review and consistency throughout code.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Schroeder responded to related questions:

 

Number of students per unit and overall

Mr. Schroder advised that they anticipate 190 students overall, approximately two per room, with more students in suites, probably 3-4 students; but mostly two students for each standard hotel room.

 

Sprinkler/ADA compliance

Mr. Schroeder advised that the County Inn & Suites building was fully sprinklered and handicapped accessible.

 

Parking

In leadership meetings at the University, Mr. Schroeder noted that parking was always an issue for a campus community.  Mr. Schroeder advised that the University subscribes to a mixed housing approach, with students interspersed together, not one separate dorm for freshmen and another for seniors, but together to create better synergy and a process for their interaction of students, which would also be the plan for this student housing facility.

 

Mr. Schroeder noted that freshmen were not allowed to have cars on campus, which would leave 140 out of the projected 190 students in the building eligible to bring their car and register it; a ratio of approximately 80% which had proven itself consistently.  Following that logic for the potential of 110-120 vehicles requesting a parking  permit, with only 80 spaces available, Mr. Schroeder recognized the need for an additional 30-40 vehicles to be accommodated off-site.  As a way to control parking,

 

Mr. Schroeder advised that parking permits were color coded and specific to a lot and designation; with tickets issues by their own public safety organization, defining when and how students parked.  Mr. Schroeder advised that resident students were not allowed to bring their cars on campus during the day as it interfered with parking for commuter students.  Mr. Schroeder advise that the intent was to provide overflow parking at their Northwestern Office Center (former Edina Realty building) as their lot had approximately 100 spaces, and there were only 26 employees now using that facility, leaving 70 spots available, well within the University's ability to designate parking within ½ block of the Country Inn
building.

 

Being sensitive to parking opportunities, Mr. Schroeder advised that the University was in the process of acquiring another lot on the east side of Snelling Avenue adjacent to the apartment building to accommodate another twenty vehicles, and further control traffic flow during the day by continuing use of its shuttle bus service that made rounds from the main campus to the Northwestern Office Center, and would serve the Country Inn site and apartment buildings as well.  Mr. Schroeder advised that the shuttle ran from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on a regular schedule, and from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on call, with service also available to serve students.

 

Mr. Schroeder advised that the University had also observed student parking spilling onto City streets, which was an ongoing dilemma.  However, Mr. Schroeder noted that students could park on public streets as much as other vehicles, and could do so without paying a fee to do so, which they found attractive.  Unless and until the City implemented a "No Parking" ban on City streets, Mr. Schroeder noted that they were unable to enforce students to further address the goals and objectives of the University and City.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Schroeder confirmed that the Northwestern Office Center was used for nursing classes, which had approximately 30 students, with some resident and some commuter students, but still leaving sufficient space for additional parking availability.

 

Jay Lindgren, Land Use Attorney for Northwestern

Specific to conditional versus permitted use consideration, Mr. Lindgren asked to speak to that issue.  Mr. Lindgren expressed his and the University's appreciation of the great working relationship with staff over a number of months, and City Planner Paschke's willingness to pursue this joint proposal to address housing
across the City.  Obviously, Mr. Lindgren observed, on behalf of Northwestern,
they would request that student housing be listed as a permitted use in the Community
Business (CB) zone to accommodate this facility.  Mr. Lindgren opined that the
CB was distinct from the others being considered and adjacency concerns to residential areas, which was not the case with this piece of property.  Also, from practical considerations and while not adverse to conditions applying to approval, Mr. Lindgren noted that there was a timing concern with this request; and while understanding the City's processes, if they felt favorably to student housing in this area, asked that they approve this request accordingly in order to allow the University to close on the property, and move on with the renovation process to allow those rooms to be available for this fall's school term.  If the Council wished to have more conversation on conditional uses, Mr. Lindgren respectfully asked that those conditions be determined tonight, but if parking was a primary use, to him it seemed that CB created a reasonable conclusion for allowing it as a permitted use.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Schroeder addressed vehicle needs of students in commuting between campus and their housing versus for jobs and/or internships.  Mr. Schroeder advised that Northwestern was very much interested in the possible extension of Bus Rapid Transit to the campus to transport students; however, at this time it was difficult to accommodate student schedules with current routes and frequency of service; as well as creating additional cost for the University to shuttle students accordingly.

 

Public Comment

Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callahan expressed his views on student parking on streets and spoke in support of fees for student parking permits, opining that while not being against rules, a significant parking problem was being generated.  Mr. Callaghan opined that a lot of students parked on Lydia during the winter and were  not concerned with moving cars for snow emergencies or plowing. 

 

Mr. Callaghan asked if a traffic study had been done to determine impacts of additional cars in an already congested area; and opined that the campus PUD needed review and any expansion address congested traffic on Lydia and Snelling Avenues.

 

Sam Leiba, Rose Vista Court

As a former student and alumnus of Northwestern, Mr. Leiba advised that parking permit fees were charged, and typically paid as part of financial aid costs for students.  Mr. Leiba opined that students were not attempting to dodge fees to park on streets, as they much preferred a parking lot to being ticketed by the very aggressively observant Roseville Police Department and their diligence in ticketing.  Mr. Leiba further opined that parking issues on Lydia were not connected to Northwestern, and whatever vehicles were parking there over the winter months, were not student vehicles, with students either walking of using the shuttle bus, or skateboarding or other ways to get to class.

 

Steve Gjerdingen

Mr. Gjerdingen noted the number of Northwestern buildings already around campus where classes were held, which were walked to by students and staff (e.g. Mel Johnson building where communications classes were held), and others already mentioned.  Mr. Gjerdingen advised that he would like to see more of that in the future, but also noted that the first house on Lydia Avenue was a community house and may be partially to blame for parking issues rather than Northwestern.  Mr. Gjerdingen opined that he saw no parking problem with Northwestern, with ample parking available based on current codes.

 

Tim Callaghan - rebut incorrect statements

Mr. Callaghan rebutted statements by other speakers, opining that parking on Lydia may be Eagle Crest employees or visitors, but once school is out of session, parking problems on Lydia Avenue cease.  Mr. Callaghan suggested running license plates to determine who was parking there.

 

Discussion

Noting previous discussions and areas already ruled out on the Table of Uses, Councilmember Etten suggested some standards for conditions, including ADA Compliance and Fire Code Safety and Parking Standards, suggesting a rate of 7 or 7.5 spaces per bed as a reasonable place to start.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred, but noted the need to facilitate parking for visitors to students; noting the extreme difficulty in finding parking for family members or visitors in lots at the buildings on the east side of Snelling Avenue.  If any further spillage happened in those areas, Councilmember McGehee noted that it would be traumatic; and as an example noted that it was projected that the Sienna Green project would have sufficient parking, but now there was a continual problem with parking along the frontage road.  Councilmember McGehee suggested a parking ramp may be needed to accommodate students in the near future, but a realistic number of spaces was called for now.

 

Councilmember Etten concurred, but offered his suggested number as reasonable and higher than projected numbers.

 

Discussion ensued regarding back-up parking options if needed; potential signage at Eagle Crest to avoid student parking in those lots; and the specific request at the Planning Commission level to retain parking standards for elementary and middle school uses as well.

 

Mr. Paschke requested asked City Attorney Bartholdi for an opinion on whether the City Council could condition ADA compliance and/or sprinkler systems as a land use condition, since this was covered in the building code area as part of the project review process; and whether such conditioning would be problematic when the building code spoke to them much differently and whether it would create a conflict.

 

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta made several suggestions rather than attempting to write conditions at the table.  Given a number of other potential uses, Mr. Bilotta suggested language for a conditional use process such as "the applicant has demonstrated that parking is adequate for its intended use."  Mr. Bilotta noted that this allowed Northwestern the opportunity to provide other strategies, and if overflow is not a problem it could be addressed, but in general the same parameters and standards would apply in different situations (e.g. military school).  Mr. Bilotta suggested similar language on the building site, such as "the applicant has demonstrated that the site and existing structure are adequate for its intended use."

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of that suggested language.

 

Mayor Roe expressed concern about requiring the CU process for this particular application due to timing issues; and questioned how that would work.

 

Mr. Paschke noted that the staff report alluded to or analyzed this use related to the existing use as a hotel, which was similar but one had more traffic with people staying in units; with student housing less impactful than a multi-family residential, with this use falling in the middle of lodging and multi-family uses.  With student housing, in this area mostly in business zoning, Mr. Paschke opined that it would not be impactful to residential uses typical of using a CU process; and from a planning/zoning side, he was not sure if was appropriate or not to so condition it, even though that would be at the City Council's discretion.

 

If the City Council chose to approve an ordinance creating a CU process for this project, Mr. Paschke estimated that it could be a two month process before it returned to the City Council for approval, depending on the processing for Planning Commission review and recommendation, but a minimum of sixty days from today.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned why not to go "permitted use" in CB with Mr. Bilotta's suggested standards in place of conditions.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that this could be done, either criteria or conditions, which would be his recommendation.

 

Mr. Bilotta stated that the problem with conditions for a permitted use is that it pushed the decision to staff to determine their adequacy; and may not have consensus.  Also, Mr. Bilotta noted that if the City Council did not agree with staff's recommendation and due to the timing issue if these two conditions were not applicable, it could be left as a permitted use and in August or September the final conditions could be applied before final approval.

 

Regarding permitted use versus CU, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was seeking the most protection in LDR-1 or LDR-2 zones; and would not have an issue looking at this as a permitted use in the CB zone, with some of the standards previously laid out by staff and looking at incorporating the parking standard.  If that were the case, Councilmember Willmus advised that he would support moving forward on that basis.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke provided staff's perspective on the parking condition
of 7 or 7.5 proposed by Councilmember Etten; but without further research
offered no comment, since the code built into it shared parking agreements
off-site and he would need to review general language in order not to bind the
City to something.  Mr. Paschke suggested it may be more appropriate to provide
flexibility for staff to negotiate and find a useful solution and solid agreements, once that information is available; with Council support of the project if the applicant met or assigned spots in other buildings to support the condition, which would not be much different than negotiating with other developments.  Mr. Paschke clarified that code already supported shared parking.

 

Since Northwestern already operated under two PUD's, Councilmember McGehee questioned
why the PUD wasn't simply amended to address this expansion and put conditions
on that expansion.

 

Mayor Roe advised that such a process would take another two months or more.

 

Related to the PUD, Mr. Paschke was not sure if that was an option, and deferred to the City Attorney.  Specific to conditions, Mr. Paschke sought clarification on those intended to be crafted this evening to include in approval.

 

While the 7.5 fit this situation, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if it fit other situations going forward; and expressed her preference for language allowing specificity for each project.

 

To that point, Mayor Roe noted that as far as design standards and adequate parking, it was a permit requirement anyway, to which Mr. Paschke concurred.  Mayor Roe questioned if the desire was to be so specific by adding additional requirements, since the building permit process drove those issues and nothing was needed in addition to that process.

 

Councilmember Laliberte concurred with Mayor Roe's observation, and while it was beneficial
to address these things, if they were already addressed in other areas or
standards in code, there was no reason to add another layer in.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that they were not addressed in other areas (e.g. ADA and sprinklers) and that she was not talking about this for any purpose other than this CU currently before the Council.

 

Mayor Roe noted that this particular use had already demonstrated the status for ADA and sprinklers, and therefore, didn't need to be part of this consideration tonight.

 

If just specific to this tonight, Councilmember McGehee asked the City Attorney to respond to the question of Mr. Paschke and her.

 

City Attorney Bartholdi stated that the City had a contract with the PUD, and it could be amended and have conditions added; however, he noted that the City no longer had a PUD district anymore, and the current PUD could be amended as long as it was mutually agreed upon by both parties.  Specific to including sprinklers and ADA compliance as a condition when it is addressed under the building code, that would depend on whether the building code applied to re-used buildings or only to new construction, which may need to be clarified.

 

Mayor Roe noted that if a building wasn't already compliant, it may be tied to use, not new
construction; and in this instance, the building was already compliant, so any
amendment should be a consideration for future discussion.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that it would be easy to craft a simple agreement between the City and Northwestern to amend the PUD for this use; and stated that she was prepared to say parking was adequate and since the building had elevators and sprinklers, it would be a simple solution to amend the existing PUD in that manner and get an agreement by both parties.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1469 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code;" excluding the Residential/Family Living Uses and Civic/Institutional Uses and referenced; and correcting height references in Section 4.12.a from 45' to 40' (Line 30).

 

Councilmember Etten opined that he would like to take staff's suggestion to move forward in leaving this as a permitted use to allow Northwestern to move forward; with staff to return in the future with a discussion and recommendations to address additional concerns and issues raised in tonight's discussion.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee

Motion carried.

 

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, enactment of ORDINANCE SUMMARY NO. 1469 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Section 1001, Definitions and Table 1005-1 of Title 10, Zoning Ordinance of the Roseville City Code."

Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

b.            Consider University of Northwestern Agreements

City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed his recommendation for the City to enter into a PILOT Agreement and Charitable Pledge Agreement with the University of Northwestern-St. Paul, as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014. Mr. Trudgeon expressed appreciation to Northwestern staff for their voluntary willingness to these agreements; opining that it initiated a framework for the City to start a new relationship with Northwestern.

 

Public Comment

Tim Callaghan

In this case, Mr. Callaghan advised that he didn't have a big objection, but questioned rationale in not applying the funds toward the TIF District to help pay it off versus the proposed use for economic development efforts.

 

City Manager Trudgeon responded that the TIF District was set to expire in 2018, and all obligations of the District had already been met with no bonds remaining to be paid off, with the District proposed for decertification sooner than later; and the TIF District involved an area larger than that of the hotel location.

 

Mr. Callaghan opined that as long as the District was set to go away that was good, and it would be nice to see more of them go away.

With concurrence by staff, Mayor Roe noted that approximately $400,000 was projected to come back to the City upon decertification of this TIF District.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement (DRAFT Attachment A) and Charitable Pledge Agreement (DRAFT Attachment B) with the University of Northwestern - St. Paul.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:48 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:54 p.m.

c.            Community Development Department Request to Perform an Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 311 County Road B

As previously noted, this item was resolved prior to the meeting.

 

d.            Presumptive Penalty Approval - Smashburger Restaurant Alcohol Compliance Failure

Roseville Police Lt. Lorne Rosand provided a history of this first semi-annual round of compliance checks with two failures of the sixty license-holders visited on May 1, 2014.  Detail of the failure was provided in the RCA dated June 9, 2014 and supplemental documents.

 

Lt. Rosand noted that this was the second compliance failure of Smashburger in the last thirty-six months, with the previous failure on September 13, 2011.  Lt. Rosand also sought City Council discussion and direction on the violation by the license holder related to training requirements, providing sufficient ground for denial or non-renewal of 2015 licenses.

Motion

Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, continuing the meeting past the 10:00 p.m. curfew to complete the agenda.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Smashburger MN Attorney Kate Becker

Ms. Becker, and two representatives of Smashburger, the District Manager and Local General Manager, were present.  Ms. Becker noted that Smashburger took this compliance failure seriously and was very regretful of the violation, having captured the attention of local and corporate office manage in Colorado.

 

Ms. Becker reviewed actions of the firm since the violation, including City training, beyond their previous utilization of the ARM program through the University of MN, whose records were kept on line and not accessible after repeated attempts to provide written proof of that training to the Police Department.  Ms. Becker advised that within one week of the violation, all employees had completed the Roseville training, and provided proof to the City of that training.

 

Ms. Becker further advised that the employee had been terminated and a new policy implemented that a purchaser not only had to provide identification, but the manager on site had to be called in to verify their age.

 

Regarding the presumptive penalties proposed, Ms. Becker respectfully asked that, in light of the steps taken by Smashburger subsequent to the violation, the City Council consider reducing the fine or eliminating some days of the suspension from five to two or three days.

 

Having revamped penalties for liquor violations a number of years ago, Councilmember Willmus noted that a significant discussion had been held at that time regarding suspensions and the timeframe for multiple violations within that timeframe, including a dollar amount and length of suspension.  While appreciating the efforts made by Smashburger going forward, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was not inclined to deviate from that policy.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, allowing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code; for alcohol compliance failure at Smashburger Restaurant, 2100 Snelling Avenue N, on May 1, 2014; with a penalty of $2,000 and a five day liquor license suspension.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Specific to the training requirement violation, Mayor Roe reviewed potential ramifications related to denial or non-renewal of a license and additional optional penalties for suspension up to 60 days and/or fine up to $2000; and asked the City Council to address that particular issue.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned why the U of MN could not verify server training; and suggested the program needed revised if that was the case.

 

Ms. Becker responded that Smashburger was continuing to try to obtain the information, but log-ins for each employee were tied to that verification, and since employees had not recorded those passwords, management was still attempting to get access and would continue to do so.

 

Councilmember Laliberte questioned why the information as not recorded in Smashburger's individual employee files for verification as well.

Ms. Becker responded that the training was done in the summer of 2013 and since that time the franchise was under new management, and records were found to not be filed or recorded appropriately.  Ms. Becker advised that now verification is filed for each alcohol server and available at each restaurant.

 

Mayor Roe thanked representatives for their information and attempt to obtain information for evidence, which he advised would certainly be a mitigating factor when consideration was given for renewal of the license this fall; and  hoped that the information be available at that time.

 

In reviewing the November 14, 2011 City Council meeting minutes, Councilmember Willmus noted that there were issues with training at that time as well; and while also not willing to take  action tonight on this training violation, he expressed hope that the applicant would amend future training to comply.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, and suggested better record keeping efforts be pursued as well.

 

Ms. Becker assured the City Council that Smashburger would continue its efforts.

 

e.           Presumptive Penalty Approval - Romano's Macaroni Grill Restaurant Alcohol Compliance Failure

Roseville Police Lt. Lorne Rosand summarized this compliance failure, similar to that of the previous licensee, and as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.  Lt. Rosand noted that this was a first-time violation for this licensee.  In reviewing training records, Lt. Rosand noted that 21 of the 34 employees, or 62% had completed training, while other training was incomplete or done after this compliance failure.

 

Romano's Macaroni Grill General Manager Tony Carbone

Mr. Carbone apologized for this violation, expressing his embarrassment and the ramifications in losing a ten-year member of their team due to these events.  Mr. Carbone assured the City Council and Roseville Police Department that they took this very seriously, and it brought to light the need for training moving forward and lessons to not become complacent and make sure documentation of training was thorough and complete.  Mr. Carbone expressed appreciation to Lt. Rosand for his guidance throughout this situation; and respectfully asked that the store not be charged with a one day suspension, but was willing to accept the punishment deemed appropriate.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, allowing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code; for alcohol compliance failure at Romano's Macaroni Grill Restaurant,
1595 W Highway 36, on May 1, 2014; with a penalty of $1,000 and a one day
liquor license suspension.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested that servers concentrate on the red mark "Under 21" listed on applicable driver's licenses rather than the actual birth date in the future.

 

As with the previous violation, Councilmember Willmus advised he would not recommend further penalty related to the training violation, but it would be a consideration at the time of renewal.

 

Councilmember Willmus requested that Lt. Rosand, when the violation is the second or more, copies of the minutes of those previous Council meetings be included in the RCA as background information; duly noted by Lt. Rosand.

 

f.             Consider Support for Sherman and Associates, Inc. Redevelopment of 2785 Fairview Avenue, and Finance Options

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta and Acting RHRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey were present.  Mr. Bilotta briefly reviewed this first step in the financing need process, as detailed in the RCA dated June 9, 2014.  Following his summary, Mr. Bilotta noted two actions were requested for approval, or other options as noted.

 

Andrew Hughes, Twin Lakes Project Manager for Sherman and Associates

Mr. Hughes briefly presented the proposed project and financing needs at this time.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Hughes confirmed that the parcel was intended to be replatted, with the two multi-family buildings on the same plat eventually, but each separately financed.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Hughes advised that Sherman and Associates had no intention of selling any of these components of their portfolio in the future, as their business model continued that they remained long-term owners and operators of the facilities they built.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Hughes clarified that anticipated funding from Metropolitan Council to construct Twin Lakes Parkway was already committed as part of the financing package, with the project attempting to leverage as much funding from that source as possible, but not available to further reduce the funding gap as it was already assumed as part of the projected financing needs.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Ms. Kelsey responded that this project is structured so none of the parcels can be split off or not developed due to requirements of TIF housing districts and the allotment for affordability housing which would be met by one of the buildings, but would not meet the legal requirements if broken off.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Kelsey advised that the current Ramsey County market value was $1.6 million for the land, and a value of $1,000 for the existing building.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11155 (Attachment G) entitled, "Resolution Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Demonstration Account Funding and Authorizing an Application for Grant Funds to Assist with the Redevelopment of 2785 Fairview Avenue;" AND adoption of Resolution No. 11154 (Attachment H) entitled, "Resolution Expressing Intent to Create and Administer a Housing Tax Increment Finance District and Consider the Waiving of Sewer Access Charges for the Redevelopment of 2785 Fairview Avenue."

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Kelsey advised that the total SAC funds available were approximately $1.2 million.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe wished Mr. Hughes good luck with the next steps in the process.

 

14.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Consider Park Building Network Connectivity with Electronic Door Access Control, Video Security and Public Wireless Internet

As previously requested by the City Council, Director of Parks & Recreation Lonnie Brokke briefly summarized requirements for network connective with electronic door access controls, video security features, and availability of public wireless Internet for newly-constructed buildings and/or existing buildings, as detailed in the RDA dated June 9, 2014 (page 4).  Mr. Brokke noted that the 2014 CIP budget included video security for the park system, and those funds were proposed for use moving forward at the discretion of the City Council.

 

Information Technology Network Manager Terre Heiser was also present to review and clarify the technical issues for these amenities, and considerations for updating some existing controls at City Hall and the Skating Center as another component to consider, and similar to the managed access available for the new fire station.

 

Mr. Heiser reviewed some of the challenges in accessing facilities, various modules for door access, and distinctions between DSL Internet, Wireless 4G Broadband, or Comcast High Speed Data using a cable modem and costs for each option based on the location of the parks, structures, and cable or fiber optic networks.  Mr. Heiser advised that Verizon was used for Police Squad cars, as it provided the best performance to-date in and around Roseville.

 

Mr. Heiser further reviewed staff familiarity of video security systems and door access management; and problems with "City Guest" for open WIFI in parks as it related to coverage and other management concerns.  While the City currently uses "City Guest" wireless service for Roseville buildings and eighty-nine other public buildings throughout the joint powers agreements with other cities and agencies; Mr. Heiser advised that there was not sufficient bandwidth to manage it on an open network and still maintain the other items.

 

Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Heiser included split tunneling and challenges in providing that service to park users based on terms of service under the City's licensing agreement with providers; limited availability for users at various access points and necessary software to provide access points/codes; and 4G service at approximately $60/month but potentially higher for this metered service and lack of access controls.

 

Councilmember Etten suggested secondary door access for larger park buildings (e.g. warming areas for ice rinks during winter months).

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of having WIFI available and easy access to park buildings to make them usable.

 

Further discussion included which buildings had fiber optic available and/or their nearest connection; proximity of park buildings related to the City's sanitary
lift stations to include them in the direct connection, since most are
currently using wireless or radio connections, with last weekend seeing lost
communication to one of those lift stations; the reliability of fiber versus
radio communications; and how to allocate funding and distribute costs to get
the connections made correctly and the most cost-effectively.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he would look into whether or not Communication Fund dollars could be utilized for all or a portion of these items.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Heiser addressed options for having the 4G Verizon connection for the City's infrastructure and another DSL connection
available for public use; and areas to separate and others suitable for
combining, recognizing the slow DSL service in the Roseville area at this time
due to the distance from that local office.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with such a combination of both services and staging it at some facilities to provide Internet user access, especially where shorter fiber runs were available as well as funding in place; with phasing of a certain number of buildings initially and programmed in subsequent years.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the consensus of the City Council appeared to be for staff to identify funding sources to get things done and do them right.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated that she felt more strongly that Internet access be provided in larger building versus spending significant money for smaller community buildings not used in the same fashion.  Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr. Heiser and Mr. Brokke for the invaluable information, wishing that it had been made available sooner so it could have been incorporated into initial spending rather than trying to find that funding now.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested the Parks budget provide some funding for this as well to make their buildings more user-friendly.  However, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of providing the services for all park buildings, not just larger buildings, equipping them all the same to meet expectations of the public to be able to use the buildings appropriately and to ensure security.

 

Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she was not recommending no security at small buildings, and was only referring to Internet availability at larger facilities.

 

Mayor Roe recognized the intent of Councilmember Laliberte for prioritization of how Internet access was staged, with Councilmember Laliberte's concurrence and confirmation that security and access should be the priorities.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that some buildings may be easier to install fiber, while DSL may be the answer for other buildings not so easily accessible; while some may be closer to a lift station and move into a new category of discussion.  Overall, Councilmember Etten advised that he was looking for different solutions in the short-term.

 

Mayor Roe clarified the direction to staff to come back with revised versions for installation of Internet service for all buildings, in some form or another.

 

Mr. Heiser sought clarification related to whether or not that included a fiber component, since there were options for service that would only change the threshold for monthly operating costs for the City.  Mr. Heiser reviewed some of the options and projected costs, and contract terms (e.g. Comcast terms are that the City did not make their Internet connection openly and readily available to other users); other tiers of service providers that may be available for redistribution; and connections into routers as buildings come up; with an IP network needed to wire and control door access.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that those options were not being requested tonight, but the City Council was seeking staff to provide the most cost-effective approaches to provide Internet access in all City-owned buildings.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding moving from key to controlled access for park buildings; identification of which lift stations could be upgraded to fiber; and a review of city-wide fiber with a report in process from Mr. Heiser for updates and a build-out projection for a fiber plan and how it may relate to this.

 

Mr. Brokke thanked Mr. Heiser for his assistance with this information and recommendations.

 

Mayor Roe stated that, in recent conversations he'd had with the mayor of another community served by a JPA with the City of Roseville for IT services under Mr. Heiser's management, that mayor couldn't say enough good about Mr. Heiser and acknowledged the great job he was doing.

 

15.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

 

16.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

17.         Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded adjournment of the meeting at approximately 11:02 p.m.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe.

Nays: None.