City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

July 20, 2015

 

1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.

 

2.         Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items 8. f, g and h from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

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

 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

4.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.

 

a.            Thomas F. Schraad, 1142 Rose Place

As a fifty-eight year resident of Roseville, eleven of them most recently at this address, Mr. Schraad brought to the attention of the City Council issues with City of Roseville vacant property adjacent to him, providing 58 year resident; providing pictures of those concerns.  Mr. Schraad noted various code enforcement issues, including debris, brush and overall mismanagement of this city-owned property.  Mr. Schraad opined that, if the City sent out letters to private property owners to point out code enforcement violations, the City should be required to police its own property as well.  Since overflow parking was often needed for special events at Central Park, Mr. Schraad suggested the City clean-up this property and use it for overflow parking, even though it was not a paved surface.

 

Ms. Schraad also provided pictures of another code enforcement issue on his street with the parking of commercial trucks and his interpretation of ordinance making parking illegal for commercial vehicles for more than a few hours daily and/or monthly.  Mr. Schraad provided a history of commercial trucks parking illegally on his street, their use of his driveway and those of his condominium neighbors for turn around, and breaking up the surface.  Mr. Schraad advised that his attempts to speak to the firms owning these commercial vehicles had proven futile; and his conversations with an Officer Johnson of the Roseville Police Department had only helped in the short term.  Mr. Schraad noted the inconsistencies he'd received from staff in various city departments and the need to improve communication to resolve this situation for the benefit of residents.

 

Regarding parking, Mr. Schraad noted the lack of enforcement of parking on Rose Place, even with signage in place, especially during holiday events at Central Park (July 4^th events); and parks actually parking in condominium driveways, in front of their private garages, and blocking their driveways, as well as fire hydrants in that area; recurring on an ongoing basis over the last ten years.  Mr. Schraad asked what the City meant by "No Parking," or how they intended to resolve this situation.

 

Mayor Roe stated that the City should enforce the same standards for their property as with other properties in the City, directing staff to follow-up, as duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.

 

Mayor Roe further stated that the City enforcing "No Parking" areas, and the illegality of parking commercial trucks on residential streets, should be enforced consistently and also directed staff to follow-up on both issues.  Mayor Roe noted that parking was an issue around Central Park during the July 4^th weekend, but should be enforced better.  If there was confusion among staff as to who should or could enforce that parking, Mayor Roe asked that City Manager Trudgeon address that issue and ensure consistent enforcement.

 

Councilmember McGehee provided an anecdotal example based on her experience with an abandoned vehicle on a residential street, receiving the same response from the Police Department about their inability to enforce the issue; with Community Development Director Bilotta responding that it could and would be enforced in accordance with City ordinance.  No matter which department was responsible for that enforcement, Councilmember McGehee opined that once it comes to the City's attention, it needed to be addressed.

 

Mr. Schraad asked that staff communicate with him directly as an officer of his Homeowners Association, and he would report back to their group.

 

b.            Mary Bridgeman, 471 Wagner Street

Ms. Bridgeman noted her attendance and comments at a previous meeting regarding wildlife management, and the amount of money she'd spent to remove raccoons from under her porch.  Ms. Bridgeman noted her fear with the raccoons potentially relocating under her porch due to neighbors feeding them; and her lack of finances to repeat this significant expense to remove them; and asked the status of the City's ordinance in addressing feeding wildlife in Roseville.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the ordinance, originally scheduled for tonight's meeting, had been deferred to the August 10, 2015 meeting.  Mayor Roe assured Ms. Bridgeman that staff and the City Attorney were working on this ordinance draft now for recommendation and presentation to the City Council.  Mayor Roe asked Ms. Bridgeman to provide her contact information to City Manager Trudgeon so he could follow-up with her on the status of this ordinance, including addressing language regarding the feeding wildlife.

 

c.            David Bailey, 10 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Bailey referenced his recent receipt of a letter from the City as part of its Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP).  Mr. Bailey opined that the actual concern was about a very small area of paint fading and siding/trim approximately 9' long and 2' wide.  While recognizing the issue, even though he considered it to be insignificant, Mr. Bailey clarified that his main concern was in the City actually sending out such a letter to private property owners, opining that they were infringing upon constitutional rights and the liberty to be free from such government intrusion on those liberties.  While the letter stated Mr. Bailey had a year to address the code violation, Mr. Bailey opined that he was not confined to any timeframe, as such an effort by the City was against the constitution and not enforceable by threatening compliance.  Mr. Bailey further opined that everyone wanted to keep up their properties, but his concern was the encroachment on his liberty, as he was sure it would also be of interest to the State of MN.  If the City chose to inspect properties and make observations, and thank property owners for their interest in Roseville citizenship, they could do so, but Mr. Bailey opined they could not enforce those efforts.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Bailey for his comments; and advised that the constitutionality of code enforcement programs is tested frequently, and as long as the City provided due process allowing private property owners to address their complaints, the City would continue to follow that framework.  While appreciating Mr. Bailey's comments, Mayor Roe clarified that the ultimate goal of the program is not to "nitpick," but to maintain property values and rights of property owners in the community as a whole.  Mayor Roe assured Mr. Bailey that code enforcement programs had been tested, and would probably continue to be, in the court system; and expressed confidence that the City's program met the requirements of those previous constitutional tests.  Mayor Roe recognized that the program could be challenged at the discretion of any property owner going forward.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe's summation.

 

At the request of Mr. Bailey for follow-up, Mayor Roe asked him to provide contact information to City Manager Trudgeon for follow-up outside the meeting.

 

d.            Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick reported on a recent "community-building community" opportunity in assisting a private property owner address code enforcement issues.  Ms. McCormick introduced Mr. Robichaud and provided pictures of that community effort in addressing abatement issues for this long-time Roseville resident, unable to complete the work due to his age and declining health.  Ms. McCormick noted how fortunate it was to be involved in this broader community or neighborhood effort, providing an extraordinary experience.  While her personal neighborhood association, the Twin Lakes Neighborhood Association, had spearheaded this effort, Ms. McCormick noted the involvement of a much broader group of residents and businesses, as well as several council members, who participated in this effort.  Ms. McCormick invited those in tonight's audience to come forward, and personally recognized residents, businesses/developers, and council members with a certificate of appreciation and thanked everyone for helping to resolve this issue, whether by contributing their labor, donating materials or providing expertise.  Ms. McCormick concluded by stated that it had proven a very rewarding experience, and a new friend had been made as well.

 

Bernard Robichaud, 959 Brenner Avenue, Property Owner

Mr. Robichaud expressed his deep and heartfelt gratitude for the help.

 

Mayor Roe thanked all who participated and for their willingness to do so.

 

5.         Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced the upcoming screening at the Ramsey County Library Roseville Branch  of "Selma: The Bridge to the Ballot" and registration contacts to ensure adequate space was available.

 

Mayor Roe announced upcoming open houses for pending development activities in Roseville for an Old Highway 8 and County Road C-2 properties and updated zoning and comprehensive plan update for the Twin Lakes Area, and their respective times and location.  Mayor Roe also announced the upcoming open house for the Twin Lakes Parkway Extension project as plans move toward final design.  Mayor Roe shared contact information at City Hall for additional information.

 

6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            Introduce City Engineer Jesse Freihammer

Public Works Director Marc Culver introduced City Engineer Jesse Freihammer, who started employment with the City of Roseville on June 29, 2015; and provided a brief biography of Mr. Freihammer and previous service in the engineering field.

 

Mr. Freihammer thanked the City Council and staff for the opportunity to work in Roseville and for tonight's formal welcome.

 

Mayor Roe welcomed Mr. Freihammer and the City Council's anticipation of working with him in the future.

 

b.            Proclaim Night to Unite

Mayor Roe read a proclamation declaring August 4, 2015 as "Night to Unite" in the City of Roseville, to encourage awareness of the importance of crime prevention programs and the impact of residential participation in reducing crime in the community through joining neighborhood watch groups and assisting with crime prevention efforts.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming August 4, 2015 as "Night to Unite" in the City of Roseville.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Mayor Roe encouraged residents to sign up for a block party through the Police Department, or just in participating in their neighborhood events to address crime prevention in their neighborhoods.

 

7.         Approve Minutes

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.

 

a.            Approve July 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, approval of July 6, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 2, Line 12 (Laliberte)

Correct title of event to "Party" in the Park"

·         Page 3, Line 32 (Laliberte)

Correct to read: "all departments as to whether a [lowest] bid or best value procurement"

·         Page 7, Line 3 (Laliberte)

Strike language as follows: "cost for the City represents the reimbursement to the state [for the state basically] for the traffic signal controller"

·         Page 7, Line 9 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "paying [so much] [most of the cost] for this particular interchange"

·         Page 11, Line 19 (Laliberte)

Correct to read: ", whether from Iona [or the hotels] [or other road] access, and"

·         Page 21, Lines 15 - 17 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "Councilmember McGehee noted the need to consider Roseville as a [flyover] [flyway] area for migratory song birds [from] [over] Minneapolis to Langton Lake [and surrounding areas where quality vegetation is needed]. [as it considered the particular quality of vegetation to retain]"

·         Page 23, Lines 7 and 11 (McGehee)

Correct to read "flyway" rather than "flyover"

·         Page 23, Line 13 (McGehee)

Correct to read "tree" survival, rather than "their" survival

·         Page 24, Line 40 (Laliberte)

Insert language as follows: "agreed that she was not interested in [the City assessing or approving] a private property owner's need"

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve July 13, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of July 13, 2015 Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 7, Lines 7 - 8 (McGehee)

Correct last sentence to read as follows: "Councilmember McGehee opined that the City's governance would be better served by not fixing [itself on] a levy percentage [without] [before] incorporating [that] [CIP] information [now versus later] [early in the budget process]."

·         Page 8, Lines 13 - 17 (Laliberte)

Correct to read: "Councilmember Laliberte [noted] [expressed her frustration that such an analysis was not part of the Finance Commission's July agenda, and] only one meeting [of the Finance Commission] was scheduled after that to analyze the CIP."

·         Page 8, Line 40 (Laliberte)

Strike:  "and storage" to make it more presentable

·         Page 10, Line 30 (Roe)

Strike: ...funded through "with those being" tower lease fees.

·         Page 17, Line 23 (Roe)

Add house address for Ms. Wheeler (on file)

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated July 6, 2015.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$807,011.51
78091 - 78260	1,397,246.02
TOTAL	$2,204,257.53

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

                                               

b.            Approve 2015 Business and Other Licenses

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of renewals of business and other licenses and permits for terms as noted.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

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

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the City campus phone system had last been replaced in 2003.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, "2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated June 30, 2015.

                       

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

d.            Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2014 Pavement

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11234 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - 2014 Pavement Management Program (PMP) Project;" accepting work completed, initiating the one-year warranty, and authorizing final payment in the amount not to exceed $40,372.93.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

e.            Accept Roseville Area High School Police Liaison Officer Agreement for the 2015-2016 School Year

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the 2015-2016 Roseville Area School Police Liaison Officer Agreement (Attachment A); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

i.             Receive Donation of Tourniquets and Rapid Deployment Packs from the Roseville Police Foundation

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, accepted the donation of equipment (tourniquets and rapid deployment bags) at an estimated value of $834 from the Roseville Police foundation.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

j.             Request for Approval of a Preliminary Plat of the Property located at 2325 and 2335 Dale Street and 657, 661, 667, and 675 Cope Street into 18-Medium-Density Residential Lots

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approved the proposed Garden Station PRELIMINARY PLAT for the property located at 2325 and 2335 Dale Street and 657, 661, 667, and 675 Cope Street, based on the public record and findings/recommendations of the Planning Commission, and content of the RCA dated July 20, 2015, as conditioned.

                                                           

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

k.            Set Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Public Hearing Related to the Dale Street Development

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11236 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Calling Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1; and the Proposed Adoption of Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 10 and 12;" scheduling the public hearing on Monday, August 24, 2015 at approximately 6:00 p.m.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

l.             Request to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11237 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Sign Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies and Request Form for Minnesota Government Access (MGA) Login Account;" allowing the City Attorney's office access to the State Court database.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

m.          Approve Information Technology (IT) Shared Service Agreement with the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Shared Services Agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization for the purposes of providing IT support services.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

n.            Approve Appointment to Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)

Specifically regarding HRA appointments, Councilmember Laliberte recognized the Mayor made these appointments under statutory provisions, with the City Council ratifying those recommended appointments.  However, Councilmember Laliberte asked that in the future when doing appointments/reappointments, the process include soliciting applications similar to that used for other commission members, providing all of the City Council with the applicant's background and expertise, as well as for public information for the community as well.

 

Mayor Roe agreed that was a good point, and in the future, he and staff would follow that procedure, as well as a memorandum justifying his rationale in a particular appointment as part of the application process.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted a typographical correction in the signature copy of the Resolution for processing.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11238 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Affirming Mayor's Reappointment of Susan Elkins to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville;" for a term from September 24, 2015 to September 23, 2020, as corrected.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

o.            Request by Cities Edge Architects for Final Approval of an Amended Common Interest Community Plat at 2715 Long Lake Road

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11239 (Attachment D) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium (Condominium No. 266) Modification, A Common Interest Community (CIC) Plat (PF15-005)."

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

9.            Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

f.     Receive Authorization to Accept the Minnesota Department of Commerce Grant Funds Crime Scene Processing Equipment

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated July 6, 2015.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested statistical information on break-ins before and after use of this equipment to determine its effectiveness.

 

Mayor Roe opined this was a reasonable request; and City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request for follow-up.

 

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, acceptance of grant fund as detailed in the State of Minnesota Grant Contract (Attachment A); and proceeding with the purchase of specialized crime scene processing equipment.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

g.            Approve Resolution Awarding Contract for St. Croix Storm Sewer Lift Station

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated July 6, 2015.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted that the most recent bids for this type of work raises the focus of the CIP disparity and the need to raise the projected cost allotment of $500,000 to a more realistic estimate closer to $1 million.  While recognizing the need to balance the proposal and how to fund those additional costs, Mr. Trudgeon expressed staff's confidence in the validity of the proposal and the responsibility and expertise of the contractor.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the City Manager about the need to complete this work; however, questioned why the City only received one proposal with this project; and only three proposals were received on a similar project this year.

 

Public Works Director Marc Culver responded, after discussions with the consultant as well as contractors, the reason in so few interested contractors appeared to be based on their glut of work following the improved economy and so many projects available to them at this time.  Since this is a complex project and few contractors qualified to perform the work, Mr. Culver advised that other companies admitted they were just too busy to take on any additional work.  Using the Best Value Procurement Process, Mr. Culver noted the blind process used even with only one proposer; but found the proposal comparable to that submitted for other lift station work bid this year, and therefore stood by their recommendation to proceed.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with staff's recommendation.

 

As discussed at a previous City Council meeting, Mayor Roe noted the request for staff to include scoring tabulations as part of RCA information when using the Best Value Procurement process.

 

Mr. Culver noted that request, and assured that staff would provide the complete information as requested in future RCA's.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11235 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Awarding Best Value Proposal for Project ST-15-13 - St. Croix Storm Sewer Lift Station Project;" to the firm of Magney Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $827,875.00."

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

h.            Receive 2015 - 2^nd Quarter Financial Report

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated July 6, 2015.

 

Councilmember McGehee pointed out the poor financial condition of the Water Fund (page 10) and staff narrative regarding consideration of future rate increases necessary to repay the internal loan and offset projected operational and capital replacement costs.

 

Likewise, Councilmember Willmus pointed out the Storm Sewer Fund (page 11) and staff narrative specific to that internal loan, but also showing reserves at close to $4 million.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the report did not address the source of the internal loan, nor did that fund balance include proceeds of that internal loan.

 

Finance Director Chris Miller concurred, noting that it was not shown on this second quarter report, but would be shown at year-end as funds were transferred.

 

Mayor Roe noted the need for Councilmembers to remain cognizant of that going forward with the budget process; as well as taking into consideration the recommendations of the CIP Task Force to transfer funds from the Stormwater to the Water Fund, yet to be done, since the internal loan took the place of that recommendation.  However, Mayor Roe noted the need to review transfers versus loans as part of City Council discussions when addressing the CIP.

 

10.         General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Adopt Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Roseville City Code, Title 2: Commissions

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated July 6, 2015.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted suggested changes in the new Chapter 201 and general provisions for advisory commission (Attachment A) included those revisions discussed at last week's meeting.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the remaining specific chapters for each advisory commission also included revisions based on those earlier discussions, and sought further feedback from the City Council.

 

Specific to discussions at the previous meeting on filling Human Rights Commission (HRC) vacancies and related language issues, City Manager Trudgeon advised that he added specific language to new Ordinance No. 201 based on that feedback, specifically the addition of Sections 201.04.E (lines 64-65) and 201.07.C and D (lines 120-121 and lines 126-127) respectively.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, as per previous discussions, language had been added in Chapter 201 to address youth commissioners as applicable and similar statements thus removed from language in Chapters 204, 205, and 209.

 

In Chapter 202 (line 157) for the Planning Commission, Councilmember Willmus questioned if any allowance was made for appointment of a Councilmember to serve on the Commission of if that language should be struck.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that State Statute Chapter 462 for Planning Commissions was silent on that detail, and the decision at the discretion of the City Council.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted her strong advocacy to retain a Councilmember on the Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) based on her position that the HRA served as a fully-appointed board with levy authority.  However, Councilmember Laliberte stated that, in this case with the Planning Commission, she did not see that same scenario, and therefore, did not feel strongly about retaining that language.

 

Councilmembers McGehee, Willmus and Etten concurred.

 

Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested that lines 158 - 159 of Ordinance 202 be struck.

 

In the new Chapter 201, Councilmember Laliberte noted typographical errors in paragraph lettering, duly noted for correction by City Manager Trudgeon.

 

In the new Chapter 201, Councilmember McGehee noted various grammatical corrections for deletion of commas (e.g. lines 34, 38, 42, 56, and 87 as some examples).

 

In Section 201.01.B, Councilmember McGehee suggested a statement indicating the commissions can initiate topics to bring forward to the City Council at their discretion.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted that, while not specific, Section 201.07.B talked about periodic advisory commission joint meetings with the City Council and suggested plans and pending issues could be addressed at that time.

 

In Chapter 201, Section 201.03 (line 42), Councilmember McGehee suggested revised language as follows: "high school to serve one-year terms as ex-officio [youth] members of a commission."

 

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification as to the responsibility of the Ethics Commission for ethics training, and whether commissioners were expected to attend training annually or upon initial appointment.

 

Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Gaughan responded collectively that commissioners were expected to attend annually, with Councilmember Etten concurring and noting that training varied with different topics each year.

 

While that training was not specifically addressed in the Ethics Commission Chapter 207, Mayor Roe noted it had been past practice for that to be their responsibility.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced previous discussions to include a "Code of Conduct," but noted no reference to that in Chapter 201, Section 201.04 Terms specific to behavior reflecting on the City of Roseville.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested a statement listing expectations of commissions for their signature upon appointment.

 

Mayor Roe noted past discussions, and recommendation of the City Council, included not referencing something in code until language had been developed, at which time the ordinance could be amended.

 

In general, Councilmember McGehee referenced the individual chapters and inclusion of their organizational purpose (e.g. scope, duties and function) as a preamble to outlining their specific duties.  Since that preamble is included in Chapters for the Human Rights, Finance and Community Engagement Commissions, Councilmember McGehee suggested something similar also be provided for the Ethics, Public Works and other commissions as applicable to set the tone before getting into the specifics.  Councilmember McGehee again thanked CEC Commissioner Gardella for her distinction between and definition of civic engagement and community engagement. 

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted her appreciation in accomplishing this goal to provide uniformity and consistency across the board in guiding advisory commissions and the work they performed for the City Council.

 

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1481 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Roseville City Code, Title 2: Commissions;" as amended.

 

Councilmember Etten thanked members of the City Council Subcommittee and staff for their work on this project.

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1481S (Draft Attached) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Roseville City Code, Title 2: Commissions."

 

                                    Roll Call (Super Majority)

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

Nays: None.

 

11.         Presentations

 

12.         Public Hearings

 

13.         Budget Items

 

14.         Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.         Establish a Date of Sale for the Issuance of the City's 2015 TIF Bonds

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized this request to establish a date of sale for the issuance of the City's 2015 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bonds, as detailed in the RCA dated July 20, 2015; and as outlined in previous meetings and discussions.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe for the benefit of the public, City Manager Trudgeon reviewed the purpose of the bond issue and history as provided at the last City Council Work Session (lines of 13 - 18 of the RCA).  Mayor Roe asked that in the future, that analysis be included for reference in the RCA, duly noted by Mr. Trudgeon.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller responded to questions of how much was left in TIF District 17 (a little under $400,000); legalities if consideration was given to closing the TIF District (one option); how much money the City would receive upon closure (approximately $500,000 to the City, with remaining distribution to all taxing jurisdictions); and availability of $1.5 million in the Hazardous Subdistrict.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if this $500,000 represented "free money" for the City's use in its operating budget for infrastructure needs.

 

Finance Director Miller responded that, while those funds could be used for any public purpose, it would need to be a City Council policy decision.

 

 

If the City closed TIF District 17, and used that $500,000 in the coming year for infrastructure needs, Councilmember McGehee questioned if it could then open another TIF District to replace 17, but move it to another area of focus.

 

Finance Director Miller stated he was not in a position to provide that expertise to the City Council given statutory requirements that would need to be met, and deferred to the City's Financial Consultant from Springsted, available in the audience.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted that there were specific requirements to be met, including geographical blight tests for this redevelopment district; advising that some of that blight had been removed, and without further analysis, it may be challenging for the City to qualify under current strict TIF laws and with the condition of those properties compared to when TIF District 17 was first certified.

 

Mikaela Huot, Springsted

Ms. Huot elaborated on several of the existing TIF Districts in Roseville, and redevelopment provisions under that district based on the status of the property at the time the district was established in 2005.  In considering a new redevelopment TIF district now, Ms. Huot advised that only certain properties with substandard buildings would qualify, including occupancy tests and not applicable to green space.  Ms. Huot advised that other types of districts could include economic development, but would be restricted to manufacturing/warehousing type uses and buildings restricted accordingly, with limited availability for a housing district for affordable housing uses. Ms. Huot clarified that the current TIF District includes a much larger area and provides much more flexibility; and once TIF District 17 is decertified or meets the 10 year rule passed, more restrictions would apply on how dollars could be used within that TIF District, affecting timing and size restrictions and use of proceeds in the project area, basically encompassing the boundaries of the City of Roseville.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification on the rationale in keeping TIF District 17 open through issuance of bonds as proposed.

 

Ms. Huot responded that the structure for issuance of TIF Revenue Bonds would provide for payment of principal and interest from future TIF increments from that District based on current revenue projects and development currently underway in the district.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked what restrictions would be placed on using that money going forward beyond road construction.

 

Ms. Huot responded that bond proceeds or future TIF revenues could be used to finance already-identified public improvements, or if the City chose not to issue bonds, future revenues would be restricted with the law requiring at least 75% revenues spent within the district be done by September 15, 2015 and any revenues after that date would be severely restricted.  Ms. Huot advised that this prompted a recommendation to issue bonds at this point to protect any revenues after that restriction date that may jeopardize financing future projects or public infrastructure improvements.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the remaining question was, if the City did not issue bonds for TIF District 17, the District could be closed at any time and there would be no commitment carried forward to pay off bonds.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that, once closed, the City would be no worse off as properties would pay taxes in general.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she was having a difficult time seeing any inherent value in issuing bonds.

 

Ms. Huot noted, in this type of TIF District, there were currently no obligations, and once the purpose of the district had been fulfilled, any additional increment would be considered excess.  If there were no additional obligations, Ms. Huot noted the district would have to be closed or requiring the City to decertify the district.  In this case with the bond issue, Ms. Huot noted that window of opportunity remained open.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted other public improvements in this area had yet to be discussed (e.g. purchase green space or installation of sidewalks and/or pathways).

 

For clarification, Ms. Huot reiterated that if this District expired, there would be significant restrictions on the use of remaining TIF dollars, only available in the redevelopment district and only 90% of those qualifying or TIF-eligible expenditures.

 

Mayor Roe asked if the bond proceeds had to be spent on identified projects at the issuance, or could be used on some other project that met similar requirements.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that, at some point the City needed to market the bonds, and questioned how successful that marketing would be if the City didn't identify a clear plan on why the funds were needed.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her point was, that while staff was recommending this bond sale to extend the life of the TIF District, there had not been sufficient time for public discussion for the City Council or the public beyond what limited options had been provided in last week's agenda packet materials.  Under those circumstances, Councilmember McGehee opined this did not meet the transparency test or community engagement in general principle.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was very unclear whether this was financially in the best interest of the City and its residents; opining that over $10 million in taxpayer dollars had already been spend in this area for road and infrastructure improvements without any repayment, and with no demands for this road.

 

City Manager Trudgeon clarified that there are other infrastructure projects (e.g. land acquisition) and previous discussion had long-identified necessary road improvements; with this being the next step to preserve those dollars in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and immediate surrounding area to fund those improvements.  While there may be other alternatives, Mr. Trudgeon opined that there were none immediately available.  If consideration is given to land acquisition, Mr. Trudgeon opined that $3 million wouldn't go very far; and offered his recommendation as the best step moving forward is to use available TIF funds and apply them to remaining projects.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked City Manager Trudgeon when staff had become aware of this September 2015 deadline and need to make this decision; opining staff should have brought this to the City Council before the last minute to provide a more thorough discussion.

 

City Manager Trudgeon responded that the deadline had always been looming, but as other avenues for development continued to be deferred or not come to fruition, it became prudent to recommend this bond issue process.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Huot advised that the remaining term for TIF District 17 would be December 31, 2031 for the financing term for bonds issued on March 1, 2016; and final bond payment due March 31, 2032 with 2031 for final TIF collection.  Ms. Huot advised that the presumed interest rate and rate of return on bonds for this anticipated sale date of August 17, 2015 was conservative and reasonable, with the surplus of $30,000 per year anticipated and required over the levy providing additional cushion.

 

For the benefit of the public and his colleagues, Mayor Roe clarified that based on the legislative extension of TIF District 17 from five to ten years, the City Council's decision was to issue bonds for qualified expenditures in the district for a project or for payback of those proceeds; or to use the increment by September 3, 2015.

 

Ms. Huot concurred, noting that statutory rules require revenue incurred and revenue spent within that remaining timeframe; with the bond issue included in that provision to further extend available time to complete improvements and projects within TIF District 17.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted provisions (Exhibit A to the Draft Resolution) allowing an optional redemption date of March 1, 2014 for prepayment of the bond proceeds, but not until that date, confirmed by Finance Director Miller as accurate as currently structured.

 

Public Comment

 

Lisa McCormick

Ms. McCormick expressed her surprise at how quickly this came up, and also questioned why there was no public hearing  like the Dale Street amendment to the TIF District for public information and comment.  Referencing the disclosure statement (Exhibit A.4) and recognizing this is a procedural first step, Ms. McCormick asked if there would be more opportunity for public comment prior to the sale date.  Ms. McCormick requested further clarification in her conflicting understanding of this as a General Obligation TIF bond issue and whether it was specifically tied to those improvements mentioned in the AUAR.

 

Mayor Roe responded, confirmed by City Manager Trudgeon, that those costs listed are within the parameters of the existing plan for this TIF District; with the original public hearing held on that plan when the plan was established in 2005 and no additional hearings planned as there was no need to amend that plan.

 

Specific to the Dale Street Project TIF District Amendment, City Manager Trudgeon responded that it was off-site so the public hearing on changes to the plan would  be required.

Specific to the disclosure statement, Mayor Roe deferred to Finance Director Miller who clarified that all bond issuers required compliance with the City's annual financial report, which was an ongoing reporting requirement to holders of the bond.

 

In his interpretation of responses earlier questions by Ms. Huot, Mayor Roe noted based on expectations of  purchasers of bonds, they expected projects as listed for the purpose of issuing bonds would be those undertaken and bond proceeds used for those purposes.

 

Finance Director Miller concurred with Mayor Roe's interpretation, noting that the form served to disclose the intent of the City; and if the City chose to do something different it could significantly besmirch its reputation for future bond sales.  Therefore, Mr. Miller highly recommended that the City Council not consider doing anything outside those stated parameters.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked Public Works Director Culver to confirm the reasons the City of Roseville undertook so much of the cost for the I-35W/Cleveland Avenue interchange project was due to seeking that improvement before it rose to the level of need identified by the County and State.

 

Public Works Director Marc Culver responded that this represented his response for that cost share. 

 

As a consequence of constructing Twin Lakes Parkway, Councilmember McGehee opined that if further changes were required on Fairview Avenue, it would be based on previous discussions with Ramsey County Public Works staff, as Fairview Avenue was also not on their schedule in the near future.

 

Public Works Director Culver responded that it would depend on the type of improvements for Fairview Avenue.  Mr. Culver noted staff's ongoing and strong lobbying of Ramsey County to make improvements on Fairview Avenue at County Road D and Lydia Avenue sooner rather than later; anticipating Ramsey County would respond favorably and move those projects up on their CIP, not currently or immediately identified by them.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11240 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $3,270,000 in General Obligation Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2015A;" setting the date for sale on the issuance for August 17, 2015.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated she would support this motion in keeping with the original intent of the bonds and intended projects for that area.  Councilmember Laliberte advised she did not want to see the City left with only a fraction of funding available.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she disagreed with that, and given her comments made at last week's meeting, would probably not support this request to establish a date of sale for the issuance of 2015 TIF Bonds. 

 

Councilmember provided the reasons for her opposition, listing a variety of reasons, opining that the least of which is that she didn't think that a hearing held in 2005 for a project occurring in 2015 really met her litmus test for public engagement, therefore from her perspective negating an actual public hearing.  Councilmember McGehee further noted the very strong and broad citizen opposition expressed earlier this year at the City's planning session held in February for a parkway.  Councilmember McGehee noted only one developer had recently involved, who came before the City Council saying they didn't care about the parkway one way or another, again indicating that no one has come forward to say that this parkway is essential.

 

As previously pointed out, Councilmember McGehee opined that residents had already spent $10 million of public money toward this infrastructure area, and reiterated her previous comments that TIF is not free, but public money from the citizens of the City of Roseville, involving the city, school district and county.  Councilmember McGehee noted that there had yet been no real cost benefit analysis of the kind she would consider adequate.  Councilmember McGehee noted that, with current zoning, the City Council was making changes to the zoning for the entire area as well as making new zoning tools available that may in fact present opportunities absent that road.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the City has already spent $2.4 million for the road right-of-way, and this money could be used for other options in the area.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the new parkway would cost approximately $3.1 according to bond figures, with $2.4 already spent, totally $5.5 million of taxpayer money for a road that developers haven't asked for and residents don't want.  Councilmember McGehee further noted that

 

Without consideration for the real cost of this road including ongoing maintenance which she also found to be a major issue but never dealt with satisfactorily by the City Council in any meaningful way through a cost benefit analysis, Councilmember McGehee stated that this remained an unknown.  Councilmember McGehee also noted the lack of any real cost of what that additional traffic to Terrace Drive, changes to Terrace Drive and Lincoln Avenue, or changes to Lincoln and Snelling Avenues and County Road C-2, changes to Fairview Avenue at County Road D or Lydia Avenue, remained an unknown also even though ongoing expenses that would become the responsibility of all city taxpayers.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the roadway would create distance inequality in all those areas that have yet to be studied and nothing presented; and further opined that she found it particularly egregious that this has come forward at this late date with no other plans or options having been offered or any opportunity to even think about a plan before this was brought forward.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this is a plan to complete something planned for completion that was a TIF District idea long before 2005, but to use a hearing from 2005 is wrong and does not represent anything like what was being sought after to improve communication, seek citizen input or provide for good financial management.  For those reasons, Councilmember McGehee stated that she would not support this request.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated this sitting City Council had heard from property owners and small business owners in this area seeking completion of the roadway.  Councilmember Willmus opined this was a vital segment of the roadway to help redevelopment of the interior of Twin Lakes and projected capacity needs, and met the goals of the City.  Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion.

 

Councilmember Etten argued that the Twin Lakes Parkway and a number of the projects included in the bond issue had received frequent discussion with public input over the last year.  Councilmember Etten noted that taxpayers were going to have to pay for these public infrastructure improvements, as per past practice throughout the community, and this was a quality way to accomplish that.  Councilmember Etten opined this fit the original concept and intent of TIF District 17; and noted any use of the property designated for the Parkway other than for a roadway would require refunding federal monies.  Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion.  In terms of comments regarding good financial management, Mayor Roe opined that it made no sense to take $500,000 now in lieu of being able to utilize $3.2 million and issue bonds adequately that were conservatively covered.  Mayor Roe opined that while, if for some reason increments were not collected and the City was responsible for the bond payment, he felt confident that staff and financial consultant analyses and recommendations were conservative enough to address any such scenario.  Mayor Roe noted that the analysis was based on no additional tax revenue or development in that area, simply status quo.  Mayor Roe reiterated he felt it was well within the City's ability to pay off the bond using increment as outlined, providing for good financial management as previously approved by this City Council.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:09 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:16 p.m.

 

15.         Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.              Update on Park Building Usage

Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Jill Anfang summarized the RCA reporting park building use for the first six months; reporting usage surpassed expectations.  Ms. Anfang provided sample tracking sheets (Attachments A, B and C); and noted building-related statistics and demographics, with bookings already going into 2016 for various events.  Ms. Anfang further reported that there was no evidence to-date that shelter reservations had been hurt, with new facilities providing additional rental options for the community, with shelter rentals remaining consistent.

 

Public Comment

Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan expressed disappointment on the buildings constructed with no anticipation over the next 5-10 years of significant maintenance dollars or yearly costs reserved to pay for planned or unexpected future expenses.  As a direct result, Mr. Callaghan stated his anticipation that in 5 years that City Council would be seeking additional money for that purpose.  Mr. Callaghan opined that the City should have learned from past experience and budgeted accordingly to address those future significant needs, and questioned why they had not done so.

 

In his discussions with Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke specific to the Lexington project, Mr. Callaghan noted his interpretation of significant discrepancies in projected and actual expenses for utilities.

Mr. Callaghan stated his preference to know the honest cost for the buildings; opining that they've been underestimated drastically creating a significant cost to taxpayers for operating and maintaining these buildings beyond their initial construction cost.

 

In response, Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council is looking at annual and future maintenance and replacement costs as part of its CIP going forward.  Mayor Roe advised that he reviewed spreadsheets for all Parks & Recreation facilities, including roofs, major systems and all potential costs; and had plugged that information into the CIP going forward and that would be part of the budget process over the next few months, and scheduled for annual review and revision as indicated.

 

Councilmember McGehee reported she had performed her own analysis along those lines, based on information provided to her by staff; and had her two-page analysis displayed on camera.  Councilmember McGehee expressed concern that the public had not been informed adequately on those costs; so for her own purpose, she performed the computations that included the cost of the buildings, cost of the bonds, annual debt service on the bond portion used, annual cost of buildings, estimated staff time, and cost for CIP contributions/depreciation; representing the total cost for taxpayers for those new facilities.  Based on her projected total annual cost to taxpayers for the buildings, and cost to subsidize those annual costs, Councilmember McGehee further projected monthly costs and rental fees that needed.  Since there was no business plan made available for residents, Councilmember McGehee noted her provision of this information; opining that if these buildings were intended to make money, they needed to be heavily scheduled, even though non-resident related uses beyond use of the facilities as neighborhood parks and facilities didn't appear amenable for residents.  While supporting the buildings, Councilmember McGehee opined it was important to provide information to residents of how and where their money was being spent.  With a $14,000 deficit already shown based on the Park & Recreation Department's first six months of operation for these facilities, and noting the budget process currently underway, Councilmember McGehee stated the need to provide her more detailed analysis for the public. 

 

Councilmember McGehee noted her ongoing request for this type of analysis, using the Twin Lakes Parkway project as an example, showing this analysis as part of the preliminary information made available for the City Council and public.

 

Councilmember Willmus thanked Ms. Anfang for her work in tracking this information and the success of bookings to-date and coordinating the community's use of the facilities, opining that level of use could be attributed to her efforts.  Regarding comments about these facilities being an asset to the community, Councilmember Willmus stated that he saw them on a par with other services provided (e.g. police, fire and public works), all playing into quality of life and calling Roseville home by providing recreation opportunities for all ages as one of those very positive aspects of the community.  As far as those amenities being revenue generators, Councilmember Willmus opined that his advocacy for the facilities to serve that purpose had never entered his mind, further opining that parks and recreation services, programs and/or facilities were not now nor did he ever see them becoming revenue generators.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the City of Roseville subsidized those costs from other revenues; and as noted in post card responses from citizens on the 2016 budget process, and park and recreation allocations were broken down and reflected in tax dollars, if tax revenues were looked at from a different perspective, continued support would be obvious.  Councilmember Willmus noted people continued to support parks and recreation, the City remained on the right track in providing those amenities, and overall the vast majority of the community used these facilities and their construction was proving a step in the right direction.  Councilmember Willmus reiterated that parks have been a great benefit for the community.

 

Councilmember Etten opined that the City Council and staff had all been more than aware of costs, as detailed in the CIP, including other expenses as they had come forward, which was all part of budget needs and projections moving forward.  With the most recent staffing request coming forward, Councilmember Etten noted the need to address this to further facilitate those amenities.  Councilmember Etten noted the purpose of the buildings was to increase community use of the park system, to provide neighborhood gathering spaces, space for youth and other programming, and to increase usage for the entire twelve months per year.  Councilmember Etten opined that already increased pride in the community was evidenced along with appreciation for the increased bathroom facility access and other amenities.  Agreeing with the comments made by Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember Etten reiterated that the facilities were not intended to make money, but to provide services and create a stronger and healthier community.  While it was necessary to be aware of costs, Councilmember Etten opined that those costs had been clearly identified upfront and planned for well by staff to make sure they are and continue to be addressed going forward.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed that the facilities seemed to be well-used, and while not expecting them to be money makers, opined that the public had been bypassed in seeking bond funding without a referendum.

 

Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus disagreed with that comment about lack of public information throughout the process.

 

While not disputing Councilmember McGehee's figures, if those numbers were to be brought to the public, Mayor Roe asked that they be verified by staff and clearly defined as categorized before being distributed further.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated she was not afraid to have her numbers vetted by staff and provided a copy to City Manager Trudgeon for Finance Director Miller's review and future dissemination.

 

b.              Sherman Development Discussion

Community Development Director Paul Bilotta apologized that the RCA was so brief, advising that additional information was anticipated following several key meetings late last week, but had subsequently resulted in more time needed, causing staff to defer providing additional information at this time.  Mr. Bilotta noted the number of steps required for such a complex project as this. 

Mr. Bilotta reviewed the history of the project and their policy decision made on June 9, 2014 by unanimous vote to support the Sherman project to make application for grant funding.  Mr. Bilotta further noted the City Council's addition of a clause to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sherman at their October 27, 2014 meeting that they were not approving the project by entering into the MOU, but only its concept.  On February 9, 2015, Mr. Bilotta noted the item coming before the City Council with an update from Sherman, and based on City Council feedback, direction to staff to begin diligently performing due diligence with Sherman to facilitate the project.  

 

As part of that due diligence, Mr. Bilotta noted, from a technical perspective, this included the "but for" test to qualify for TIF funding, with the City's financial advisor Ehlers working diligently on the various pieces and in conjunction with various funding agencies.  Mr. Bilotta noted the complications of the project based on a percentage of affordable housing units along with market rate units; and advised staff had anticipating being able to present that "but for" analysis presentation at tonight's meeting, and recommendations to support or not support moving forward based on financial analyses.  However, at this point and based on significant financial gaps remaining, Mr. Bilotta advised that changes had been made as late as last week in underwriting requirements, creating the need for all participating funding sources and agencies to weigh in, and confirm their level of participation for the developer.  Based on their respective governing structures and approval processes, Mr. Bilotta advised that a final recommendation was not possible based on those agency response times needed.

 

Mr. Bilotta recognized multiple delays was creating fatigue within the community, among staff and for Councilmembers.  However, Mr. Bilotta reported that, currently staff did not have enough information to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the "but for" test as additional information was needed from Sherman for that analysis.  Given general policy support from the City Council to-date, Mr. Bilotta suggested the City Council reaffirm their support or withdraw that support, and if reaffirmed the City's financial consultant would finalize their determination on the "but for" test.  Mr. Bilotta noted the considerable analysis and expertise of Ehlers in determining a per unit cost, construction costs, land costs and other components, with all indicating preliminarily to staff that a significant gap existed at this point for the overall project.

 

In recognizing ongoing talk about that significant gap, Councilmember Willmus asked for an update on that actual projected gap, or the number staff was attempting to address.

 

Mr. Bilotta advised that the additional gap estimated by Ehlers at this point was an additional $1 million; requiring $2.5 million to $3 million in TIF funds.

 

Referencing past staff narratives and actions taken to-date, Councilmember Willmus noted early discussions in 2013 at the HRA level of using the remaining balance of TIF District 17 funds and a small amount of State of Minnesota Department of Education and Economic Development (DEED), and questioned if over time that funding ratio had changed.  Councilmember Willmus further questioned if there was a City Council majority still willing to go forward.  Over time, Councilmember Willmus noted his shift in position; and sought to clarify for staff clear direction one way or another at tonight's meeting.

 

Based on best case scenarios at this point and without additional promises, Councilmember McGehee sought to clarify the request from Sherman was for $2.5 million in TIF.

 

From staff's perspective, Mr. Bilotta advised that they foresaw no way the deal could proceed with any less than $2.5 million and it may require more than that.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned if the City Council was comfortable with that level - or any level - of TIF.

 

George Sherman

Mayor Roe invited developer, George Sherman to respond and provide an update on the project.

 

Mr. Sherman reviewed the history of the project, as outlined by Mr. Bilotta and suggestions by the City Council in February of 2015 to change the ratio of market rate and affordable housing units, which his firm had pursued with funders, including the State, County and Metropolitan Council), creating a bigger funding gap.  Mr. Sherman noted the original submission for funding that had been supported by those agencies, and supported at that time by the City Council, was based on the original housing ratio, but in mixing that ratio, it became less economically viable.  Mr. Sherman noted the City's housing market study indicated the need for upper scale market rate apartments, which was what his firm had responded to in their original proposal for a 100 unit building at market rate housing stock, with the last such building constructed in Roseville over thirty-five years ago.  With the City later identifying their revised preference for more low income housing, or housing for those with incomes of $30,000 to $40,000 annually, Mr. Sherman noted the considerable time spent working with other agencies to provide that different model.

 

Following that process, Mr. Sherman advised that those revised models had been submitted to the City and their financial consultants for evaluation of funding gaps as indicated by staff, with a remaining gap of approximately $1 million between the projected funding need and the amount staff believed could be supported.  Mr. Sherman opined that the project generated significant TIF increment, estimating that to be $1.5 to $1.7 million over a reasonably short period of time, and should provide a surplus that will not take away from current jurisdiction revenues, but provide new revenue.  However, Mr. Sherman recognized staff's reluctance to move forward at this time with a recommendation to the City Council.  Mr. Sherman opined that and TIF risk would be borne by the developer, since it was not a General Obligation that the City had to stand behind, and only create risk for his firm as the developer.

 

Mr. Sherman further addressed upper market rate housing needs in the City not requiring assistance, with only the provision of the affordable housing component requiring subsidizing; reviewed how the project addressed City of Roseville goals; projected rate of return of 4% for the developer; and current trends of people moving into adjacent communities (Shoreview and New Brighton) for that market rate housing and for executives in corporate fields seeking that housing option.  Mr. Sherman noted the significant shortfall in workforce housing throughout the metropolitan area, and a clear goal outlined by the Metropolitan Council for cities to address that shortage of quality workforce housing, not to be confused with Section 8 housing options.

 

Mr. Sherman opined he was not under the impression that the City was interested in the site continuing to look the way it now did; and based on City Council support one year ago, noted the significant intergovernmental support and commitment of additional funds the project had received from other agencies and jurisdictions.  If the project does not move forward, Mr. Sherman noted it was at risk to lost $7 million in funding from those other sources.  Mr. Sherman referenced his letter summarizing reasons to move forward in addressing this financing gap, and respectfully requested an additional two weeks to resolve those issues and further reduce that gap. 

 

If the City did not support their initial TIF commitment indicated since day one, Mr. Sherman asked that they provide future projects and development proposals with much clearer direction before a developer pursues developing models and the time commitment and associated costs in planning this type of project.

 

Mr. Sherman opined that if the City Council continued to support this project, and provided the additional two weeks, it would be a positive for the City and make a significant statement across the state given the size of the project.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Bilotta responded that the current analysis by Ehlers dealt with the overall financial gap issue, and the level of funding being asked for by Sherman.  Mr. Bilotta noted this could result in utilizing the full available TIF District term of twenty-five years, or could be addressed within fifteen years, creating a significant difference in time based on the level of funding.

 

Public Comment

Written comments via e-mail and dated July 20, 2015 were provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and received from Susan Brown, 1776 Millwood Avenue and Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive.

 

Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan opined that residents were being asked to pay for 20% of this project; and asked what they received in return.  Mr. Callaghan noted there was no discussion of reduced rents for workforce housing using this public money, and questioned the benefit to the City.  While it may be an interesting project, Mr. Callaghan asked why the City was being requested to pay all this money toward it.  Mr. Callaghan reviewed his interpretation of the number of units, which apparently would cost more than a single-family home would, while not generating any taxes for between 15 to 26 years for the City, County or School Districts, while they carried the development free of taxes.  Mr. Callaghan questioned if the City was willing to put that much additional tax burden on its taxpayers, while paying for all services required of the development, and questioned if the resulting benefit was something worthwhile.

 

In listening to detailed explanations about TIF District 17, Mr. Callaghan expressed his confusion, and how the money was being allocated based on staff analyses especially how a TIF District could be created within another District making him more than a little suspicious.

 

As much as he would support Councilmember McGehee's suggestion to decertify this TIF District and create a new one, Mr. Callaghan noted the previous decision to not pursue that option; and this subsequent attempt to figure out how to facilitate this development.  Mr. Callaghan opined it seemed the City was putting itself into a little box, and questioned the legalities of getting out of that box.

 

Brooke Tosi, 1766 Millwood Avenue

Ms. Tosi noted references to funding indicating investment of the developer to ultimately make a profit and projecting a 4% return on their investment.  At current interest rates, Ms. Tosi opined that was a very lucrative return, while if any part of the development changes, the firm is threatening to back out.  Ms. Tosi opined that this should first prove that the developer is a for-profit firm, and in the interest of being frank and honest, should clearly indicate whether or not this project is actually viable for the area.  Ms. Tosi opined that it would be interesting to know how much of that calculation is based on market rate units continuing long-term, noting how frequent it was and precedent already set for buildings as they age becoming affordable housing units, further changing the ratio of housing stock available.  Specific to the number of jobs being created, Ms. Tosi noted the jobs would be mostly created during construction, and only temporary and not provide any long-term gain for Roseville.

 

Lisa McCormick, 2950 Wheeler Street North

Referencing comments made by Councilmember Willmus on this pending project over for the duration of at least one year, Ms. McCormick asked the City Council to take action tonight one way or the other to bring closure for the public, opining sufficient time had been provided for any alternatives for the project.  Ms. McCormick agreed that the public was getting fatigued, especially their immediate neighborhood adjacent to the proposed development; and reiterated past concerns regarding the initial notice of the project form the HRA and/or City Council before June of 2015 when brought to the attention of a broader group of residents.

 

Regarding the economics of the project and whether it will work or not, Ms. McCormick noted steps forward during the review period, specifically in environmental clean-up through hiring a Brownfields consultant to review the area, and steps to bring zoning in line through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process to create other types of developments; and opined the situation was not as dire as being portrayed, and that there were other options for this site other than the proposal.  During the public input session held in January, Ms. McCormick opined that it had been clear, and good data and public responses had been provided to the Community Development Department, clearly stating the public did not want any more subsidy granted in the Twin Lakes area, especially for a project without creation of head of household jobs.

 

Ms. McCormick agreed with Mr. Sherman regarding the City Council policy, recognizing past concerns about the message sent to developers.  However, Ms. McCormick opined great strides had been made over the last year and corrections made to alleviate inconsistencies evident in prior decision-making.  Regardless of which way this project goes, Ms. McCormick opined that those strides made would provide more prudent and conscientious projects going forward to make decisions that stuck.  In consideration of transparency and community engagement commitments recently made, Ms. McCormick opined that the community deserves an answer, and that Sherman had had sufficient time to work with staff and consultants; and questioned what two more weeks could accomplish; asking the City Council to take action one way or the other tonight.

 

Mr. Terry Foster, Agent for Hagen Properties

Mr. Foster referenced and displayed the original Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area project and related Twin Lakes Comprehensive Plan dated June 26, 2001.  Mr. Foster reviewed his history in working with Mr. Hagen, owner of the property now deceased, and subsequently Mrs. Hagen, current owner of the property.  Mr. Foster opined that the City now had the opportunity to accomplish a quality project, and now once again sought to change zoning; and reviewed the ongoing changes in direction of the City, further confusing and eliminating the ability of current property owners to sell and/or redevelop this area, no matter what the proposal.  Mr. Foster expressed frustration in attempting to meet the ever-changing target of the City for this area and their lack of support for any development presented.  Having lived in Roseville for over forty years, Mr. Foster asked the City Council to make a decision what it actually wanted to accomplish in the Twin Lakes area.

 

Janet Hagen, Property Owner

Ms. Hagen agreed with the confusion expressed by her property representative, Mr. Foster, and also reviewed a history of the property, uses, direction of the City in various projects brought forward, and current condition of the property and existing structures. Ms. Hagen expressed her sincere interest in selling the property and her continual butting into resistance from the City.  Ms. Hagen recognized the environmental clean-up needed and Sherman's willingness to perform that mitigation, the addition of a $40 million building for the City's tax base, and amount of time spent to-date on various proposals and the two years already spent on this particular project.  Ms. Hagen opined that the general public did not clearly understand the complexity in a project of this size, funding required, design and planning requirements for developers, and other components.  Ms. Hagen noted the City Council's initial support for the project when first approached by Sherman; and noted the potential improvement with this project compared to its current use, generating little taxes compared to what could be accomplished long-term.  Ms. Hagen noted the need for housing in Roseville, and while this may not be a manufacturing plant or office building, which her marketing had found was not of interest to qualified developers, opined that this project appeared to address and accomplish numerous goals outlined by the City Council over the last few years, in addition to providing housing for additional residents who would spend money in Roseville in a variety of ways, and even create some jobs.  Ms. Hagen noted the map referenced by staff was dated 1985, and that was how long redevelopment for this area has been under discussion. Ms. Hagen opined it was time to say "yes" to something and get it done. As a taxpayer in Roseville for over thirty years, while not a resident, Ms. Hagen asked the City Council to move forward.

 

Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive

Ms. Erickson referenced her written comments, as submitted earlier today.  Stating that she had nothing against Mr. Sherman or Ms. Hagen, but that she spoke on behalf of the community, Mr. Erickson opined that a lot of people were just giving up as they didn't feel they were being listened to.  Ms. Erickson stated she was not against the project, but opined this was not the right place for it given its significant impacts to their immediate residential neighborhood, as well as additional traffic to be generated with the Twin Lakes Parkway extension, and addition of 190 additional households in that small space and access to I-35W.  Ms. Erickson noted that she and many of her neighbors had also been taxpayers for a long time as well.  Ms. Erikson stated they loved their community and wanted to see their quality of life taken into consideration, citing other negative impacts form this development (traffic, street condition, park overrun, etc.) and asked that the City Council consider the wishes of the neighborhood request for use of public money providing another slap in the face of their immediate community.  Ms. Erickson noted the negative impacts to their neighborhood and their property values.  Ms. Erickson opined that the Hagen's had use of that property to fund their family needs and more; and expressed concern about market rate apartments, given her review of the Sherman project in Falcon Heights and concerns with deterioration of the market rate apartments as they age.

 

Mayor Roe focused the City Council's decision tonight on two options: granting Sherman an additional two weeks to finalize funding; or not granting that additional time and subsequent ramifications for the community and developer with that option.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the appearance of Sherman before the City Council over earlier this year seeing direction, and the general support of several Councilmembers.  Councilmember Willmus noted that at that time he was not supportive of moving forward, and he remained so; and opined the City Council owed residents their decision tonight.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed the City Council owed Sherman, Mrs. Hagen and the residential neighborhood a decision tonight.  Councilmember McGehee noted she had made her wishes known a year ago about the things she wanted to see moving forward; and had also spoken to Mr. Sherman directly on those things she felt strongly about that were not originally in the proposed mix.  Councilmember McGehee noted that she was not a big fan of using TIF, and therefore, required those additional components going forward if she was to support the project.  Councilmember McGehee noted that, at this point, Mr. Sherman could not supply those requirements, and therefore advised she had not been, nor could she ever support the project as presented.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted that, during the last conversation with Sherman in February seeking individual Councilmember feedback, she had made it clear that she was unsure whether using TIF for housing and concerned with how numbers were presented and differed, making it hard to track and follow.  Councilmember Laliberte noted this had not changed over time with this situation or how she felt about it, making her less in favor of using TIF for this housing project.  While having tried to keep an open mind throughout the process, Councilmember Laliberte noted her expectations of information brought forward, even after repeated requests and attempts, had not served to clearly communicate that the project could actually work as proposed. 

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined this had not been a very transparent process for the public, the City Council or staff; and while people may not agree with her, bits and pieces of information provided to individuals as needed or as requested, did not provide for a good understanding for the public or City Council, and have created some discomfort for her in the number of side conversations, individual phone conversations seeking encouragement, or other discussions outside those before the full City Council.  Based on those misgivings and the amount of public support being requested for this project, Councilmember Laliberte stated it was just too much for her to consider, not only TIF but because of other taxpayer supported funding mechanisms.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the lack of long-term jobs generated from the project while residents are asked to pay for services for the complex over the next twenty-six years.  While Councilmember Laliberte noted she had made it clear over the last year that she did not agree with the high density residential (HDR) zoning areas identified in the 2010 comprehensive plan update and zoning code revisions, and this may indeed be a quality project as presented, she could not support it.  Councilmember Laliberte referenced the considerable amount of staff time spent on this today, which she found to be unreasonable from her perspective, even though other steps have and would benefit the community (e.g., traffic studies and additional infrastructure improvements to-date), and questioned the level of advocacy she had observed but not expected from staff.  While it may prove to be a quality project and well-meaning, Councilmember Laliberte noted the continued lack of ability for the developer to bring this forward in a final format or to supply the necessary numbers to complete review, indicating a lot of handholding by staff for the developer, which was not necessary. 

 

Overall, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the letter of support provided by the developer and petition for improvements ultimately could not suffice.  Councilmember Laliberte noted her visit earlier this year to the Cedar Riverside Complex, owned or managed by Sherman, and even though a completely different scenario, admitted she found it disturbing to see how unhappy tenants in that rental community were, opining that clearly there were some opportunities not seized by Sherman to improve communication and action for those residents needing improvement in their living situation.

 

Expressing appreciation for the regional goals of the Metropolitan Council, Councilmember Laliberte expressed her personal belief that their role should be on infrastructure versus telling communities where housing needed to locate and at what density, and therefore did not feel pressured to vote yes or extend the process to meet their goals. 

 

While not knowing  the scenario between the land owners and potential developers, Councilmember Laliberte expressed hope that there had been some milestones built into their agreement, and if not, she could not support stretching this out any further without the current property owners being able to move forward with some other development on the site.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed that this process could have been more open, but also noted the lessons learned over the last year with the process resulting in the current involvement of the neighborhood and community.  While understanding progress was still needed and not seeking to understand timeframes from the perspective of a developer, Councilmember Etten compared the 2014 Maxfield Research housing study update provided for the City as part of the Dale Street project in identifying the need for market rate general occupancy housing, which this development proposal served to meet.  With the study providing an analysis of overall housing needs for the entire community, when Sherman reviewed that study, they said they could meet that need and thus developed their initial proposal, which would serve to strengthen the community as a whole. 

While this is redevelopment and is high intensity, Councilmember Etten noted it would be clean and new housing and bring in new people o the community, as well as being adjacent to the park amenity, which was the intent that parks be used.  Councilmember Etten noted the additional pluses for the community in new quality families and housing for the community or in relocating existing families in Roseville; environmental clean-up; and proximity of Roseville for commuting to both downtowns as an attraction for new families seeking the quality of life offered by Roseville.

 

Recognizing staff's presentation of the request of $2.5 million in TIF out of a total project cost of $45 million, or 5% of that total cost, Councilmember Etten opined it was important for the City Council and public to allow the proposal to work its way through the process.  If the City pulls support for the project at this point, Councilmember Etten opined it will have significant ramifications for the community, including showing funders that Roseville is not serious about development, limit environmental remediation, and other negative impacts to the City of Roseville's reputation and end up costing the city more in the long-run with continuing efforts at redeveloping the Twin Lakes area.

 

While recognizing that the public or his colleagues may not support public subsidies, Councilmember Etten opined that they would be necessary to achieve quality development for this project or whatever may follow, and that subsidy will need to happen if big box uses are not a consideration as a self-supporting land use.  If the City wants to pursue quality housing, or even office/retail uses, Councilmember Etten opined that TIF dollars will be needed, the projects would not and could not happen on their own.  Councilmember Etten noted that the land in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area had problems needing to be addressed; and asked that the community consider long-term cost implications for the community if it continued to prevent this and future development from happening.

 

Councilmember Etten stated he would support an additional two weeks to allow the developer time to finalize funding; and while admitting this had trailed on for a long time, another two weeks was reasonable to make the project happen for the benefit to the community.  While it may note generate head of household jobs, Councilmember Etten noted the project did provide housing options in Roseville in a quality development.

 

Mayor Roe echoed comments about the need for the market place not being able to fund workforce housing, and opined affordable/workforce housing would not happen in Roseville if there was a policy to not use TIF for that need.  While that type of housing may be in demand and allow residents to move into Roseville and contribute in a positive way, Mayor Roe opined that would not happen in the private market place without some kind of assistance whether through federal housing tax credit assistance, TIF or other agency support.  Mayor Roe recognized concerns about the length of term for this housing project as addressed by Councilmember Willmus and the potential age of those buildings at the end of the twenty-six year TIF term.  However, Mayor Roe also noted the existence of the rental licensing program now in place that could help mitigate those concerns allowing the owner to stay on top of things to some extent, therefore, not causing him the same level of concern.  Mayor Roe admitted he would be even less concerned if the term was limited to fifteen years and for a smaller amount of money.

 

Mayor Roe agreed this project met the market rate need and market needs, and the market rate increment on the taxable property served to pay the way for workforce housing units.  If the City did not support use of TIF for workforce housing in Roseville, Mayor Roe opined that it would not happen, causing him greater concern.  Mayor Roe opined that this was something desirable for the community and there was an obvious need for that type of housing in this area, and even more important to look at, was the City providing the perception that they didn't want that type of housing in Roseville. 

 

Mayor Roe noted that the project met the current and proposed zoning based on the City Council's discussion process, and therefore nothing new was created from a zoning perspective in this location.  Mayor Roe noted the reason for a lack of public process for such a project was because it met those zoning requirements and no additional public airing was required.  Regarding public assistance, Mayor Roe admitted the City needed to do a better job of getting the pieces together at the beginning of a project whether than meant missing a grant cycle or not, any project involving public assistance needed to follow a public process, including open houses and other land use and zoning approvals to allow adequate public input.  Mayor Roe noted that early approvals on this project had been driven by those application deadlines for funding, thus the City's letter of support for grant applications.  Mayor Roe noted this may have been a disservice to developers in withholding remaining gap financing, and in the future should be taken care of upfront.

 

As to comments related to staff advocacy, Mayor Roe opined that it was part of staff's job to help people attempting to accomplish projects, and advocacy did not mean staff was trying to skirt rules.  Regarding comments about this project requiring public services, Mayor Roe opined that everything required some level of public service, and that was part of the City's role for any and all residences and/or businesses in the community, which everyone contributed toward.  To suggest the City not pursue new things or do so through using TIF, Mayor Roe opined was short-sighted, which he considered a real risk.

 

Mayor Roe stated he may support two weeks, but was hesitant if the gap couldn't be worked out or if it required the full term of twenty-six years, noting his preference for a term of fifteen years at a smaller amount.  While not ruling anything out at this point, Mayor Roe advised that given the importance of this type of housing in Roseville, he was not yet ready to rule it out based on discussion he'd heard tonight and in the past.

 

Councilmember Willmus offered a gentle rebuttal that public subsidy for residential developments, especially when adjacent to existing residential properties, should be based on broad and extensive public input and a public process.  Councilmember Willmus noted his support for using TIF for the Dale Street project.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted there was not one person expressing support for this proposal other than the property owner, their agent and the developer, making it difficult for him to consider a public subsidy expenditure for this project.  Councilmember Willmus noted the significant dollars being sought just in Roseville sewer access credits (SAC) and TIF dollars, without considering support from other agencies, all of whom had provided input and expressed concern, which he was going to listen to.  Councilmember Willmus noted in his consideration of TIF expenditures, he was looking at broad public support, and if on a commercial project if it provided significant head of household jobs.   Councilmember Willmus clarified that he had not challenged this on market rate versus affordable housing units, but noted the change in ratio repeatedly compared to when initially presented and current ratio projections even while they may not factor into his decision, but still relevant for the public to be aware of.

 

In general, Councilmember Willmus opined that his preference was to see greater commercial development in Twin Lakes, which he saw as having significant potential; and if municipal dollars were going to be expended, those developments that provided quality jobs were what he wanted to pursue.

 

Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus, especially the last comments of Councilmember Willmus specific to community based support, noting her support for using TIF for the Dale Street project.  With the recent zoning district changes for Twin Lakes, Councilmember McGehee opined she was not really worried about that area developing now, and preferred head of household jobs.

 

Councilmember Laliberte clarified that, at no point had she ever stated she was against using TIF for housing; and attempted to keep an open mind as all information was brought forward.  However, with this particular project, Councilmember Laliberte stated there was not sufficient reason for her to say TIF worked for this project.

 

Offering his gentle rebuttal, Councilmember Etten  questioned comparisons between this project and Dale Street, noting the City owned the land in that case and if not for that ownership component, it would not have gone through the public input process it had gone through either.  In considering what is ideal, Councilmember Etten opined that if trucks continued to be stored on that site, or used as a truck terminal in today's economic and transportation environment, it would result in hundreds of trucks using Fairview Avenue north and south and create deep impacts on that area and the entire community.  Councilmember Etten noted that was the original reason for zoning out truck terminals in that area twenty years ago; and caused him real concern.

 

Mayor Roe requested staff's response to Mr. Callaghan's question raised during public comment about TIF District creation.

 

Mr. Bilotta responded that Mr. Callaghan was correct in that two TIF Districts could not coincide on one site, and a new housing district would be created for this specific project and removed from the existing TIF District 17.

 

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded giving notice to staff to discontinue further discussions on tax increment financing (TIF) for this project.

 

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and McGehee.

Nays: Etten and Roe

Motion carried.

 

16.         City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed future draft agendas.

 

17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

At the request of Councilmember Willmus and previously brought forward by Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the current City Hall storage at Fire Station #2 on Fairview Avenue had been  tentatively scheduled for the August City Council Work Session.

 

18.         Adjourn

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m.

 

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.