City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

March 14, 2016

 

1.      Roll Call

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

 

Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember Laliberte was unable to attend tonight due to a flight delay.

 

2.      Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.      Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee advised that she would have comments on Consent Items. 8. c, f, and o.

 

City Manager Trudgeon requested removal of Consent Item 8.b for separate consideration.

 

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Item 8.i from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

Councilmember Etten requested removal of Items 8.h and m from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

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

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

4.      Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one appeared to speak.

 

5.      Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe read a prepared statement updating Roseville residents on the May 26, 2013 incident related to the Roseville Police Department and Mr. Victor Hernandez, following recent completion of an internal personnel review by the City.  Mayor Roe reported on the action taken and further reported that Officer Gunderson had since resigned from the Roseville Police Department and no longer employed by the City of Roseville; and that the other officers assisting Officer Gunderson were determined not to be in violation of any department policies.  Mayor Roe reported that due to data privacy laws concerning personnel issues, the City was prohibited from making any additional details public; and now considered this personnel issue completed by the City of Roseville.

 

Mayor Roe made several announcements, including the annual Paint-A-Thon sponsored by the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches for painting assistance based on income eligibility requirements, and providing information on the application process; and the upcoming "Coffee with a Cop" provided by the City's Police Department.

 

City Manager Trudgeon provided an update on the Dale Street Fire Station Development Project, and interest expressed by potential buyers once some of those units were closer to completion.  City Manager Trudgeon reported that the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) anticipated several models available for inspection by mid-May of 2016; and advised he would see if a walkthrough could be arranged of those models for the City Council.

 

City Manager Trudgeon reported on his and Mayor Roe's attendance earlier today at a meeting of 6 neighboring city managers and mayors; and reported that the Quiet Zones for applicable railroad crossings in neighboring communities of Shoreview and Little Canada were anticipated to be up and operating by mid-May and should provide some relief for residents prior to and during the summer.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked City Manager Trudgeon to report on the ECHO video project with TPT Channel 2; and his scheduled appearance on that channel's Almanac program on April 1, 2016.

 

Specific to a recent newspaper article on the City of Roseville's meter change-out, Councilmember McGehee opined that the article didn't accurately reflect the city's goals and intent, and the actual results of that project.  Councilmember McGehee clarified that the project wasn't undertaken for only conservation purposes, but to provide better and more reliable meters for the city that could be read at City Hall, supplying useful data for both the city and customers on their actual usage and any indications of leaks of problems with their water service.  Councilmember McGehee further clarified that some of the old outdoor remote meter readers were not accurate; and the result was that some users received "free" water over a period of time and other users paid for more water than they'd actually received.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this resulted in some customers receiving refunds and some charged for their actual usage over a certain period of time.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon reported that a maximum charge of $250 had been implemented per meter no matter how much extra water was received if that was the case.  For those with excessive usage, City Manager Trudgeon also confirmed that time payments were made available for those experiencing excessive usage.

 

In agreeing with Councilmember McGehee's perception that the article seemed misleading, Mayor Roe opined that the article seemed to be using the Roseville meter replacement situation to make another point entirely.  Mayor Roe reiterated that the inaccuracy was not with the inside meter but with that of the outside remote readers; and only about 10% of Roseville households experienced a discrepancy to some degree between the inside and outside meters; and recalibration of the original readings and a one-time make-up refund or additional charge to address discrepancies.

 

6.       Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            New Police Officer Introduction

Police Chief Rick Mathwig introduced new Roseville Police Officer Mitchell Dickens and provided a brief biography.

 

Officer Dickens expressed appreciation to the City Council for this opportunity to be introduced and expressed his honor in being able to work for the City of Roseville beyond his initial internship.  Officer Dickens stated that he looked forward to working with the Roseville Department for a long time.

On behalf of the City Council, staff and the community, Mayor Roe welcomed Officer Dickens.

 

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 March 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the March 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 3, Lines 35-36 (Roe)

Typographical correction: Correct Title of Ms. Collins to "Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk."

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

8.         Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager 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 March 14, 2016.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$625,180.32
80578 - 80774	1,177,675.77
TOTAL	$1,802,856.09

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

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

Councilmember McGehee pointed out the total expenditure of $48,000 for exterior maintenance represented in this item for the parkway and campus; and suggested that going forward ways be considered to reduce that maintenance in the future.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated March 14, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," dated February 29, 2016.

 

                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

d.         Approve Elections Joint Powers Agreement

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11303 (Attachment B) entitled, "A Resolution - Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County for Election Voting System;" joining Ramsey County and Ramsey County municipalities for new voting system acquisition and operation; and allocating appropriate funds to complete the purchase.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

e.       Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed and Authorize Final Payment on the Victoria Street Reconstruction Project

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11304 (Attachment A) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - Victoria Street Reconstruction Project;" approving final payment and initiating the one-year warranty period.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

f.         Approve 2016 - 2018 Teamsters Contract

Councilmember McGehee stated that, while she supported the contract as negotiated, she found it unfortunately timed relative to other council actions related to employee pay.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this resulted in a 2.5% increase for unionized maintenance employees, a 2.5% to 2.7% increase for other unionized organizations; while non-union staff only received a 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for 2016.  Given the City's classification system and compensation studies to-date, Councilmember McGehee opined that she found this process an egregious mistake.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that this contract represented a narrow set of city employees, and those differences should be evident.  Councilmember Willmus further stated that the City's COLA policy provided for consistent annual consideration and use of various employee indices and on average allowed for favorable outcomes and comparisons for all employees using those statistics in considering inflation and annual wage adjustments accordingly.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted comments she'd made at previous meetings regarding the equity issues between union and non-union staff and causing discrepancy between those employee groups.  Councilmember McGehee further noted that past COLA decisions had not necessarily received unanimous support of the full City Council.

 

In speaking specifically to the past COLA action, Mayor Roe confirmed that the vote had received a slim majority vote on the budget by the council, which depended on Councilmember McGeehee's support to pass.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions of the 2016 - 2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Teamsters as detailed in the RCA and directing staff to prepare the necessary documents for execution, subject to City Attorney approval.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

g.      Request for Approval for Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities of St. Paul, Maplewood, Falcon Heights, No. St. Paul, Lauderdale, White Bear Lake, New Brighton, and the Lake Johanna Fire Department and the City of Roseville for Automatic Dispatch of the Closest Emergency Unit

Councilmember Etten referenced his conversation earlier today with Fire Chief O'Neill asking that after the initial testing period, those results be reported.  Councilmember Etten also requested that the City Council and public be made of any significant changes in who or what the City of Roseville resources were being dispatched to cover; and asked that staff bring that information forward to the City Council for a public discussion.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (Attachment A) entitled, "Mutual Aid Agreement to Provide for the Automatic Dispatch of the Closest Emergency Response Unit Regardless of Jurisdictional Boundaries;" and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

j.         Cherrywood Pointe of Roseville at Lexington Encroachment Agreement

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Cherrywood Pointe of Roseville at Lexington Encroachment Agreement (Attachment A), subject to approval of the Final Plat and approval of the Public Improvement Contract; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

k.         Cherrywood Pointe of Roseville at Lexington - Public Improvement Contract Approval

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the Cherrywood Point of Roseville at Lexington Public Improvement Contract (Attachment A), subject to approval of the Final Plat and approval of the Public Improvement Contract; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

l.          Request for Approval of the Cherrywood Pointe at Lexington Final Plat

Councilmember Etten noted his anticipation of future discussion on tree preservation.  However, Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for the creative thinking on it and consideration of how best to move forward.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11305 entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Cherrywood Point of Roseville at Lexington dated December 4, 2016 (PF15-015) (Attachment C).

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of accepting payment of $63,920 in lieu of replacement trees, pursuant to the tree preservation and restoration requirements established in Roseville City Code, Section 1011.04; and stipulating that the fee shall be paid before the signed Final Plat is released for recording at Ramsey County.

                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

n.        Roseville Firefighters' Relief Association Bylaw Ratification

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, ratification by the City Council of the special legislation passed by the State of Minnesota and subsequent amended Roseville Firefighters' Relief Association Bylaws (Attachment A) provided as a bench handout.

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

o.         Authorization for Approval and Authorization of Ramsey County Agreements - Larpenteur Avenue Sidewalk

Referencing page 9 of the Environmental Review section, Councilmember McGehee suggested when a future road, sidewalk or development proposal comes forward, consideration be given to a checklist similar to that used for the City's discretionary EAW used for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that a checklist to review traffic, air quality and water impacts for each project would at a minimum acknowledge that the City had taken those potential impacts into consideration.  Other than for that suggestion, Councilmember McGehee stated that she supported the Ramsey County contract.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to prepare final plans and specifications and advertise the project for bids.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11308 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Community Development Block Grant Program Agreement (Attachment C) with Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Larpenteur Avenue Sidewalk Project;" authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.

 

                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11307 (Attachment D) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Cooperative Agreement (Attachment E) with Ramsey County for the Larpenteur Avenue Sidewalk Project;" authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.

 

                      Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as in the RCA and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.   

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted that the actual drawing for the gambling exempt permit for St., Rose of Lima Church would be held in St. Paul, so the City of Roseville did not need to grant a permit for that particular activity.

 

Therefore, City Manager Trudgeon asked for approval of the remaining licenses as listed in the RCA.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of business and other licenses and permits for terms with the exception of the St. Rose of Lima gambling exempt permit.

         

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

h.         Approve Tree Replacement Fee Identified in the Recently Adopted Tree Preservation and Restoration in all Districts Ordinance

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as in the RCA and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that City Manager Trudgeon's review had anticipated his request in removing this item from the Consent Agenda.  Councilmember Etten asked that, before going too much farther with this new fund, the City Council have a policy discussion on how a determination was made on how and where those dollars are used and for what purposes.

 

City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request for a future policy discussion.

 

Along those same lines, Councilmember McGehee asked that the future policy discussion also consider a concerted effort to keep some of the replacement trees within the same vicinity as the project; and rather than taking the cash in lieu of if a development couldn't handle the new trees, consideration be given to replacing trees in the same vicinity even if on private land possibly through a lottery system.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that the first page addressed the vicinity location; and while along similar thought processes, creative thought had been given to the Cherrywood Pointe development heard on tonight's agenda.  Councilmember Etten stated that he would also be interested in a policy discussion for options to replace trees in the same area as a development project.

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that that particular request was only that replacements be put on public land; but noted her request was that private land be considered as another possibility.

 

At a minimum, Mayor Roe noted these items should be discussed for potential addition to the existing policy; and suggested any future proposals to deal with these unique situations be approved by the City Council if future the subsequent policy didn't sufficiently address an option.

 

City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request.

 

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the establishment of a $500 tree replacement fee in the Fee Schedule as detailed in the RCA and in accordance with the recently-adopted Tree Preservation and Restoration Ordinance.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

i.             Approve the City of Roseville Police Department's Renewal of a Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Village of St. Anthony Police Department, City of No. St. Paul Police Department, University of Minnesota Police Department, and the Metropolitan Council for the Metro Transit Police Department

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as in the RCA and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.  City Manager Trudgeon noted that this document had come before the City Council in the past and those minor changes on this iteration had been highlighted accordingly.

 

Mayor Roe noted the minor revisions were basically specific to University of Minnesota statutory liability language versus municipal-specific language.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that her reason for asking that this be removed from consideration under the Consent Agenda was due to her questioning the value of SWAT.  As part of the 2016 and future budget discussions, Councilmember McGehee asked that a SWAT-specific budget and number of Roseville officers participating be provided to the City Council, including the cost to Roseville for special training, equipment, etc.  Councilmember McGehee stated she had been quite distressed to learn of the involvement by Roseville officers with SWAT and the recent New Brighton shooting.  Councilmember McGehee opined that with Ramsey and Hennepin Counties and adjacent larger municipalities having SWAT units, those should be sufficient.

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that staff had previously provided that requested information to the City Council, but could see that it was done again.

 

Mayor Roe noted that as a JPA entity the East Metro SWAT budget and governance information should be available to the public, if it is not already.  Mayor Roe agreed that East Metro SWAT costs needed to be made more clear and explicit as it related to City of Roseville costs with the next and future budget cycles.

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval for the City of Roseville Police Department to renew the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) JPA (Attachment A) as detailed in the RCA; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document.

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

m.       Request by United Properties for Approval of the Final Plat of Applewood Pointe of Roseville at Central Park, located at 934 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as in the RCA and related attachments dated March 14, 2016.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that on this item and Item l both had early submission dates in 2015, and yet were now just coming forward in 2016 for final plat approval.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in understanding how those timeframes worked and why these gaps seem unusually long.

 

Also, while the City Council is able to legally move this forward, Councilmember Etten noted the absence of a number of documents not included as part of this Final Plat approval, as noted.  In comparison, Councilmember Etten noted that with the Cherrywood Pointe development, detailed plans were available and questioned by the difference.  Councilmember Etten advised that his concern was based on this being the last opportunity for the public to see the particulars of these developments.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the variables between the Cherrywood and Applewood Pointe developments and specific documents and permitting requirements in accordance with state and city code requirements.  Mr. Paschke noted that these documents remained under refinement, and were typically fleshed out after Final Plat approval going into closing with that part of the contractual obligations set up prior to the plat moving forward.  Mr. Paschke reviewed some of the other moving parts throughout these processes and differences in the two projects as well.

 

Mr. Paschke assured Councilmembers and the public that it was not at all unusual that all documents are not completed with the Final Plat approval; and over the last five years, he recalled several differing platting situations that occurred for specific projects.  Mr. Paschke advised that the City's final approval usually happened with issuance of building permit(s); with plans continuing to undergo additional revisions between this Final Plat approval by the City Council and issuance of those Building Permits.

 

Given past discussion with other developments with grading, Councilmember Etten noted this was a large area adjacent to parks and park ponding systems, and suggested the more information the better when developments of this size and import are being done.

 

Specific to Applewood Pointe, Councilmember Willmus noted the conditions typically provided requiring staff approval prior to permits being issues.  Councilmember Willmus opined that this served as a fail-safe put in place before issuing those permits.

 

Specific to the timing process, Mr. Paschke advised that in this case the Preliminary Plat had been approved in December of 2015, and noted that a developer has six months after that point to apply for the Final Plat approval, depending on availability for approval on an upcoming City Council docket.

 

Noting the application process and 6-month timing between Preliminary and Final Plat approval, Mayor Roe suggested including that information in future RCA's to remind Councilmembers of the approval period.

 

City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request, and acknowledged Councilmember Etten's thoughts about having that information available; advising that he would continue to have those discussions among staff and seek to provide consistent approaches to align those internal information processes for the benefit of and to better inform the public and City Council.

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11306 (Attachment C) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat dated February 26, 2016, of Applewood Pointe of Roseville at Central Park (PF15-025);" of the property at 934 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street; as conditioned.

 

For this particular project, Mayor Roe stated that he found it easier to process given the previous building on the site and existing topography, not allowing for much likelihood of change from his perspective.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

10.      General Ordinances for Adoption

 

11.      Presentations

 

a.            Receive Presentation on Project Lifesaver Program

Fire Chief Tim McNeill reintroduced the new cooperative program throughout Ramsey County entitled "Project Life Saver" for locating missing individuals with cognitive impairment.  Chief O'Neill noted a life demonstration was planned tonight, and also advised the program had been used this last Sunday.

 

Prior to tonight's presentation and demonstration, Assistant Fire Chief David Brosnahan reviewed the consortium providing this service and provided a background of the transition from Ramsey County Sheriff's Office to Ramsey County Fire Departments.  Chief O'Neill noted that the State of MN is one of the largest areas in the country for the number of diagnosed autism-related cases.

 

After the presentation, Chief O'Neill reviewed Sunday's use of the program as an example and quick success in locating a child in Reservoir Park; and Fire Department personnel provided a live demonstration of the equipment in Council Chambers.  Chief O'Neill referenced the considerable number of calls received today by the Department after local media coverage by the four major news networks throughout the day and their interest in the program and equipment as a result of Sunday's incident.

 

Mayor Roe thanked those involved in Sunday's successful recovery; and expressed his appreciation for the Roseville Fire Department's involvement in the program.

 

Chief O'Neill expressed his hope that now that the word is out about the program, more people needing this service will make contact and benefit from this type of locate available.  From the Fire Department's perspective, Chief O'Neill noted that those officers involved went through 6-9 months of training and during the process learned a significant amount about dementia and autistic issues and how to effectively deal with people in those situations.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill addressed how the bracelet locaters worked through a radio transmitter with each unit keyed to a different frequency.  Chief O'Neill advised that this also provided online access to officers on the client's characteristics, their picture and individualized information on the person being searched for.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested a better terminology such as persons at risk versus those with cognitive impairments.

 

Councilmember Willmus thanked the Department for this presentation and demonstration; and asked if there was the possibility of pairing this technology with GPS technology to immediately locate the transmitter.

Chief O'Neill responded that officers had asked that, such as information similar to GPS applications for cell phones.  However, Chief O'Neill reported that radio frequencies have been found to be better at seeing through walls, and at greater distances and heights.  However, Chief O'Neill agreed that at some point, he anticipated someone making that technology better as well and investing in that GPS option.

 

Assistant Chief Brosnahan agreed that radio frequencies are better than GPS at this time for heights as well as in water.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested that as the departments reached out to their populations, they include school districts as well; with that suggestion being duly noted by Chief O'Neill.

 

b.            Receive MnDOT Construction Project Update

Public Works Director Marc Culver introduced Mark Lindeberg, North Area Engineer from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) who in turn provided an update on several MnDot projects in and around the City of Roseville in 2016 and beyond as detailed in RCA. 

 

Mr. Lindeberg reported on numerous projects as noted, advising that most would require considerable jurisdictional and timing coordination. 

 

Discussion and questions of Councilmembers of staff and Mr. Lindeberg included: the number of and logistics for 1 or 2 lane ramps for specific projects; timing and actual signage of the detour for the Lexington Avenue bridge project and school schedules; vehicular and pedestrian bridge replacements; future projects after 2016; and goals to ultimately develop a project on I-35W between Highway 36 and Lexington Avenue to reduce congestion and improve safety over the next 20-30 years.

 

Mr. Lindeberg briefly addressed related noise wall analyses for the whole corridor from Roseville to Sunset Avenue; and for Roseville-specific that area north of County Road C (noise wall on the east side of I-35W), and along County Road D and beyond as likely candidates for a noise wall.  Mr. Lindeberg noted that those analyses would include a public process and public involvement as they came closer. 

 

Mr. Lindeberg provided some conceptual bridge aesthetics for County Road C based on the theme of those throughout the corridor over the last few years in areas with a high abutment and pattern alternatives.

 

Mr. Lindeberg provided several ways for the public to seek out more information or review this information, including: MnDOT/gov/metro/projects/I35WRoseville; www.mnpass.org or view current construction projects at www.511mn.org.  Mr. Lindeberg advised that citizens could sign up for email updates at www.mndot.gov.

 

Mr. Lindeberg advised that MnDOT was doing its best to facilitate each individual project as well as their interaction with each other.

 

Specific to the noise wall, Mr. Culver revisited that advising that as indicated by Mr. Lindeberg, each section would go through a normal public involvement process and vote.  Mr. Culver reported that he found it interesting with the Roseville noise walls south of County Road D had been previously installed had been done only because they qualified for MnDOT requirements due to the trail located along the freeway.  Mr. Culver advised that they had been installed as a component of the CenterPointe Development Project.  Therefore, Mr. Culver reported that each of those companies as tenants of that land - and the City due to their trail easement rights - would vote on whether or not to have the noise walls reinstalled.  Mr. Culver noted that, given the current good signage available for many of those hotels and businesses, they may vote "no" for a noise wall.  Mr. Culver advised that he wanted to point that out as part of the process, clarifying that it was the landowner's right to decide for or against a noise wall; and further clarified that those residents on the east side of Cleveland Avenue but further to the north (e.g. Applewood Pointe and adjacent single-family homes) may prefer the benefit of a noise wall but not actually get a vote in the matter.  While public meetings would be held this summer by MnDOT, Mr. Culver sought to make that clear to the City Council and for the benefit of their constituents.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City Council could receive public input to inform its decision and reiterate at that time who was able to vote or not and why.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked how that affected the wall south of the 35W/Highway 36/Highway 280 commons area, with Mr. Culver responding that it didn't affect it at all; as this project did not extend down to that area; with Mr. Lindeberg confirming that and advising that there were no short-term visions for that area since the long-term vision was to extend the MnPass lanes all the way downtown.

 

Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation for the presentation; and asked why the northbound Snelling Avenue at I-694 project of several years ago, eliminated the connection and access to eastbound I-694 from northbound Snelling Avenue.

 

Mr. Lindeberg responded that in working with the city and county as the project developed, the number of vehicles using that ramp was found to be very low and considering the safety component from the curve, hill and over the bridge to make that access created an unsafe maneuver and became increasingly difficult.  For that and a multitude of reasons including the safety of residents in that northwest quadrant, Mr. Lindeberg advised that the decision had been made to eliminate it as it proved beneficial to few and created more safety concerns for a larger percentage.  Mr. Lindeberg noted that the pond had some impact in the decision-making as well; and even though a variety of ideas were modeled, the cost and short distance for adding a merge didn't justify the eastbound ramp and proved too expensive for the small number of vehicles using it.

 

Councilmember Etten thanked Mr. Lindeberg for the presentation as well and for any improvements to the north metropolitan area to alleviate traffic congestion and move traffic.  Councilmember Etten asked for an update on the timing for the Highway 36 at Lexington Avenue bridge replacement and when the bridge was scheduled to come down.

 

Mr. Culver responded that based on his last communication and prior to the upcoming preconstruction meeting to define and solidify the timeframe, preliminary information from the contractor anticipated shutdown approximately June 15, 2016.  Mr. Culver noted this would provide an advantage in not impacting the remainder of this school term, but unfortunately prove disadvantageous and impactful for the fall school term, even though it would allow them time to facilitate those logistics.  Based on the construction bids, Mr. Culver reported that the contractor has set a set number of days to have Lexington Avenue closed; and while the dates can be moved, it would impact the tail end of the project.  Mr. Culver noted that the school was working with students, parents and transportation providers on the logistics.  However, as a caveat, Mr. Culver also noted that weather would be a consideration in the project schedule as well.

 

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Lindeberg advised that those existing fences in disrepair or missing sections would not be addressed until the bigger 2018-2019 project.

 

Tongue in cheek, and to look on the positive side, Mr. Culver opined that 2016 would be a great year for Roseville residents to stay in Roseville and enjoy their community during the construction going on around the area.

 

In addition to requesting additional information from Mr. Lindeberg to be provided to staff and disseminated to the City Council, Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Lindeberg and Mr. Culver for this presentation and looked for forward to more periodic updates.

 

c.            Receive Presentation from Brownfield Consultants

Mayor Roe recognized outgoing Community Development Director Paul Bilotta to introduce this presentation.

 

As detailed in the RCA dated March 14, 2016, Mr. Bilotta noted approval for a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a brownfields consultant for contract with the City of Roseville and specific tasks in establishing and documenting baseline conditions for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.  Mr. Bilotta noted that Liesch Associates, now Terracon had been contracted for this work; and introduced Terracon representatives in tonight's audience.  Mr. Bilotta also recognized City of Roseville GIS Technician Joel Koepp and his work in tracking this information.

 

Eric Hesse, PE, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Mr. Hesse introduced the key members of the Terracon team, including Eric Beasley, SRF Consulting and Steve Highrun, an attorney and funding expert helping with the more intricate legal aspects with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) such as in obtaining letters of assurance.  Mr. Hesse noted that the team represented a diverse skill set in helping with development and redevelopment, and in guiding the brownfields process.

 

Through Mr. Koepp's assistance with GIS data displayed, Mr. Hesse presented the range of developments, and dynamic database showing individual properties that had been investigated or remediated, using the well-known PIK properties site and most recent development on the north by Calyxt, LLC.

 

Mr. Hesse's presentation included projects completed to-date; identification and condition of remaining monitoring wells and depth of measurements 60' below the ground surface in the glacial aquifer as well as perched aquifers above that level; studies done in the early 2000's in the broader Twin Lakes area and effects to that overall area as well as more localized and isolated monitoring and sampling.  Mr. Hesse noted that the most recent samplings indicated little if any remaining contamination, with four monitoring wells remaining, but one of those damaged to the point that samples couldn't be obtained, and one other well having gone septic.  Mr. Hesse opined that the remaining wells provided sufficient data for sampling at this point, and further opined that his firm had found nothing suggesting the need to continue sampling or tracking for elevated contaminates, even though it was good to have those monitoring wells available in case any future testing was indicated but requiring repair to those wells mentioned.

 

Mr. Bilotta referenced the Terracon memorandum (Attachment A) included in agenda materials dated March 9, 2016 providing and entitled "Twin Lakes Development Environmental Review and Status Report."

 

Mr. Hesse addressed typical and specific to rumors related to brownfields and whether the situation in Twin Lakes provided cause for serious concern needing advanced cleanup now or how he would characterize the current situation.  Mr. Hesse noted it was typical for brownfields ranges with considerable contractor, manufacturing and trucking activities in the past to imply contamination concerns that would impact those properties.  However, in his work with Ryan redevelopments in the 1990's (Tract A), Mr. Hesse advised that his firm had been contracted with to mine a dump used by a former contractor bringing fill onto that site; and Ryan had received a "Certificate of Completion" from the MPCA, which was the highest level of assurance available through the MPCA.

 

While Mr. Hesse recognized there may be other isolated pockets for clean-up from previous uses such as a maintenance shop resulting in contamination from oil spills or tanks, he noted that nothing is causing major concerns by developers or causing them to shy aware from those properties.  Mr. Hesse advised that he had seen nothing to-date that indicates the City should be doing something sooner than when a developer takes on a property.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Hesse clarified that Tract A as previously addressed had been cleaned up to the highest level for redevelopment to a commercial/industrial level, not residential levels.  However, Mr. Hess opined that it could have well received a Certificate of Completion to residential levels, but the certificates usually go with the typical use for a property; and reiterated the significant amount of waste and soil removed from the site.

 

In noting some indications of TCE in perched aquifers, Mr. Hesse noted that no contamination had been indicated in the glacial aquifer 60' down which was the typical water table in this area, but it wasn't unusual to see spots indicating contamination in perched water that could be managed in different ways.

 

If a developer was considering underground parking with a development, Councilmember McGehee asked if they would need to address perched water.

 

For typical responses to interact with and redevelopment properties, Mr. Hesse advised that the developer would need to remove perched water.  However, Mr. Hesse advised that a developer may not be able to guarantee as part of the process that they would be able to eliminate all perched water infiltrating to a deeper depth, but he also noted that in this area, the clay soils most often prevented it getting to a deeper depth.

 

Councilmember McGehee questioned what entity evaluated that; and noted the city's use of discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) throughout this area; and asked how the city could ensure it had taken the necessary precautions.

 

Mr. Hesse advised that Terracon would recommend that the city use the brownfields process through the MPCA, with developers seeking out that process ultimately providing legal assurances and agreement with a clean-up plan and their subsequent receipt of a "No Further Action" letter from the MPCA based on their plan, implementation, etc.

 

Since this area is considered a brownfield, Councilmember McGehee asked if it was automatic that developers would seek assurances from the MPCA or how sure the city could be that they had taken the necessary precautions.

 

Mr. Hesse advised that this would be the next part of his presentation and proceeded to review a two optional flow charts (displayed) providing models that his consultant team had successfully used for over a decade and entitled "Development Engagement Procedures."  Mr. Hesse recommended the city using one of these options going forward on projects as they come in, with one developer-led and the other city-led with funding activity and cost-share determined on a case-by-case basis and depending on the experience and aggressiveness of that particular developer.  Mr. Hesse advised that this process provides for a team-type relationship rather than a regulatory one; as well as making sure a developer is sing any funds that the city is offering efficiently and that the city has sufficient input as desired.

 

Mr. Bilotta referenced Councilmember McGehee's mention of the city's voluntary EAW process; and noted that since then SRF had done a larger traffic model and now consultants have a more in-depth picture.  Mr. Bilotta suggested staff re-evaluate that process to see if further tweaking is now needed to help streamline things and provide additional protection for the city.

 

Mr. Hesse opined that this process as indicated by the flow charts, provided more involvement and control by the city and allowing their input and making sure funds are being distributed property and development is taking place within the confines of city code and ordinance.

 

In this type of flow chart, Mayor Roe opined that would be helpful to include City Council decision points or updates and how that fit into the overall process.  Mayor Roe further opined that by including this additional information it would prove helpful for staff, the public and developers and make all parties feel more comfortable with the process. 

Without objection, Councilmembers concurred with that addition.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Hesse for the information and great presentation, as well as the work done to-date; and expressed his interest in more updates in the future.

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:17 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:23 p.m.

 

12.      Public Hearings and Action Consideration

 

13.      Budget Items

 

14.      Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Finalize Community Survey Discussion

Communications Manager Garry Bowman referenced the detail provided in the RCA and attachments dated March 14, 2016; and advised that new questions in the survey excerpt were highlighted in yellow (Attachment A).  Mr. Bowman further clarified the differences in "prompted" or "canned" responses (e.g. #32) versus "free-form" responses (e.g. #24) used in previous surveys and in this proposed 2016 survey.  For those items indicating a "scattered" response, Mr. Bowman clarified that the number or similarity of responses was not large enough to register.  Mr. Bowman advised that after tonight's City Council feedback, he would go through the entire proposed survey with the consultant and they would script it and review for accuracy and consistency.

 

Individual Councilmember Feedback on Questions

#27 (Etten): Typographical error "family"

 

#32 (Etten): In past surveys related to community center questions, construction was also considered via an local option sales tax; switch "may not" to "should not" and change "reasonable approach" to "reasonable addition."

 

#80, #81 (Etten): New question related to curbside recycling, clarify choice of "size" for recycling containers.

 

#89 (Etten): If the city will eventually be required to provide a compostable waste option and container, Councilmember Etten questioned if it was necessary to determine whether or not residents would like to recycle compost or not; but should perhaps concentrate on how they preferred the city offer that service.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that too much had already been asked about organics since it wasn't yet mandated.  However, Councilmember McGehee suggested the need was to determine whether or not the community had an interest in separating organics from their garbage; and if not, residents would not participate anyway.  Since many residents already have an option for composting, Councilmember McGehee suggested a more viable process would be to talk to suppliers to determine if and how when mandated they intended to address that organic service and have that information available, and then determine interest within the community.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he tended to agree with Councilmember McGehee.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted in the context of the Recycling Contractor RFP for a new contract now in process, those variables will be optioned for vendors to include in their broader proposal.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus noted that it would be helpful for the city to know relatively soon if the community wanted to consider it; and would support retaining question #89.

 

Mayor Roe suggested keeping and revising the question to eliminate distinction as to whether this service was something provided by a private hauler versus the city; and suggested the consultant review the question and how best to determine community interest rather than the current language talking specifically about a city program.

 

Mr. Bowman suggested dropping "the city offering" and revise to read: "do you support or oppose a curbside collection program for organics."

 

#90 (Roe): In response to Mr. Bowman, Mayor Roe noted that question #90 got to that point, but agreed with the suggestion for striking "city offering" from question #89.

 

Random Sampling

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman advised that the last survey randomly sampled 400 households and provided a tighter correlation with more factually correct data.  However, Mr. Bowman noted that prices changed significantly based on those larger samplings.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bowman volunteered to get information to the City Council related to the error rate compared to increased sample sizes.

 

#3, 4 and 7 (McGehee): Mr. Bowman clarified that questions $4 and #5 were both open-ended while question #7 was prompted.

 

#26, #27 (McGehee): Specific to new buildings, Councilmember McGehee opined that it would be more important for her to know why a resident didn't use one of the new buildings versus their awareness and/or use of them.

 

Maintenance of Streets, Pathways, Trails

Councilmember McGehee suggested focusing more on past survey comments and the receipt of more negative comments of city maintenance of streets, pathways and trails.

 

While unable to respond at this time, Mr. Bowman suggested those questions remained in the upcoming survey.

 

Councilmember McGehee asked that the questions separate that maintenance within parks and those interconnecting people throughout the city in determining if that remained problematic.

 

City Manager Trudgeon clarified that, while not totally on point, questions #44 and#45 address plowing in parks and in neighborhoods.

 

Mayor Roe suggested adding "plowing and maintenance" to the streets, pathways and trails questions.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the need to keep consistency from one survey to the next for better tracking.

 

#42 (Roe): In separating street maintenance and repair, Mayor Roe suggested adding two additional categories: "trail and pathway maintenance in park" and "trail and pathway maintenance outside of parks."  Mayor Roe noted the other questions as referenced were specific to those having questions on plowing.

 

Councilmember Etten clarified that the wording of questions #42 and #44 would remain as is; with Mayor Roe confirming that.

 

#31, #32, #33 (McGehee): Regarding community center questions and current review and future of the Cedarholm Golf Course clubhouse as well as other needs around the city and numerous unknowns at this time, Councilmember McGehee questioned if these questions were necessary or should be eliminated to allow room for other questions.  If these questions remain included, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to seek public input on how to address ongoing costs for a community center, not just its construction, opining that was a piece of the discussion too frequently overlooked.

 

Councilmember Etten stated that, if there was going to be any consideration of a community center going forward, he wanted this survey's questions to remain as similar to those of past surveys as possible.  Councilmember Etten noted that this didn't represent too many questions in the broader survey, and opined that while understanding what it may cost, without a firm discussion on whether or not to proceed, it would provide data about how that topic is trending in the community and status of that interest in whether or not to build a community center. 

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that she agreed with the need to continue to know if residents supported or didn't support building a community center.  However, until they said "yes, we want a community center," Councilmember McGehee questioned the need for question #32 and specific cost carrying forward but no longer relevant.  Councilmember McGehee opined that questions #30 and #31 provided the information needed.

 

Councilmembers Etten and Willmus agreed with eliminating question #32, and so without objection the council so directed.

 

Mayor Roe noted that, if the decision was to proceed with a community center in the near future, he anticipated a community center-specific survey would make sense to address financial questions and options.

 

#66 (McGehee): Mr. Bowman clarified that this questions, and any others seeking an opinion, were not prompted questions.

 

#70 (McGehee): Noting the frequent comment heard about a shortage of townhomes in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee asked if this question linking townhomes and condominiums could be separated.  Without objection, the council agreed to separate this question.

 

#27 (Etten): Councilmember Etten referenced Councilmember McGehee's question related to why or why people had not used park buildings; but opined that he found that an unusual question compared to other survey questions.  Councilmember Etten suggested a follow-up question related to whether or not residents had found their experience to be "good, not good, etc."

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested that question be kept with the pattern of other follow-up questions for those using city facilities and their experiences (e.g. are you likely to use it again, etc.).

 

Mayor Roe concurred that Councilmember Willmus' suggestion made sense.

 

#1, #10 (Etten): clarified that those questions had been eliminated.

 

Mayor Roe, with acknowledgement by City Manager Trudgeon, requested that staff bring the revised survey back to the City Council for more review prior to their authorization to move forward; along with the sample size and costs and other information requested and available from Mr. Bowman.

 

Organized Trash Collection

On behalf of Councilmember Laliberte and in her absence, Mayor Roe clarified one last time that the City Council wanted to remove references in this survey to organized trash collection; which was confirmed.

 

City Manager Summary of Tonight's Feedback

City Manager Trudgeon advised that the survey would come back with final questions and form to the City Council at their March 28, 2016 meeting; and summarized the changes he'd listed from tonight's feedback as follows.

 

#27: base question on "your experience" and would you use it again; and if experience was "poor," seek out why.

#32: remove

#42-45: provide for different distinction between maintenance and repair in parks and neighborhoods; retain plowing questions

#70: separate condominiums and townhomes

Correct typographical errors in recycling topics as noted

#89: removed "city offered"

 

b.            Appoint Advisory Commissioners

Planning Commission

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Julie Kimble to the Planning Commission for the three-year term ending March 31, 2019.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.  

Nays: None.

 

Public Works, Environment & Transportation Commission

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Thomas Trainor to the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission for the term ending March 31, 2019.

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Parks & Recreation Commission

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Ronald Bole and Cynthia Warzecha to the Parks & Recreation for terms ending March 31, 2019.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Community Engagement Commission

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, appointment of the slate of Amber Sattler, Chelsea Holub and Erik Tomlinson to the Community Engagement Commission.

 

Mayor Roe noted different term lengths; suggesting the makers of the motion amend their motion.

 

Amendment to the Motion

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, appointment of Erik Tomlinson to the Community Engagement Commission for the term ending March 31, 2018.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that when looking to extend service of commissioners, if they are filling partial terms, they are free to serve an additional two terms thereafter.

 

While recognizing that all candidates were good choices, Councilmember McGehee stated that her rationale in appointing Mr. Tomlinson to the longer term was based on him listing the CEC as his first choice.

 

Mayor Roe noted that several candidates changed their preferences for serving during the interview process.

 

Roll Call Motion to Amend

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Original Motion Restated as Amended

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, appointment of the slate of Erik Tomlinson to a term ending March 31, 2019, and Chelsea Holub and Amber Sattler to the Community Engagement Commission to serve for respective terms ending March 31, 2017.

 

Roll Call Original Motion, as Amended

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Human Rights Commission

Councilmember McGehee asked that her individual tally (Attachment A) be revised for the HRC to indicate her Choice B from Candidate Holub to Candidate Johnson; which was duly noted.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, appointment of Nicole Dailey for the three-year term ending March 31, 2019; appointment of Lauren Peterson for the two-year term ending March 31, 2018; and appointment of Edward Johnson to the Human Rights Commission for the one-year term ending March 31, 2017.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his support for the motion; noting that while unable to interview Mr. Johnson, he had contacted him via phone and opined that he would provide a very interesting background to and perspective for the HRC.  In moving forward on the HRC, Councilmember Willmus expressed his support in getting more involved in that advisory commission.  Even though candidate Wong would have made a fine commissioner after clarification of some of his interview remarks, Councilmember Willmus encouraged him to apply again in the future.

 

Mayor Roe noted his follow-up or lack of ability to reach some candidates after the initial interviews.  Mayor Roe noted that candidate Wong was one of his choices, and after clarification had the impression that he was very thoughtful about issues and was confident he would not have let his personal preferences influence his decision-making on the HRC; and expressed appreciation for that insight.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with the need for gender mix on city advisory commissions; opining that progress was being made.  Councilmember McGehee referenced the variety of experiences, skill set and life experiences brought to the table by candidate Johnson, as well as his age, would represent another aspect of the Roseville community.

 

Mayor Roe noted the great candidates applying for these positions as usual; and on behalf of staff, the community and the City Council expressed appreciation for their interest in serving in this way, and encouraged those not successful in appointment this time to apply for future vacancies.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

Staff Direction

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, directing staff to advertise for one vacancy on the Finance Commission; with an application deadline of April 5, 2016.

 

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

15.      Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Discuss Long-Term Facility Options for the Roseville License Center

Finance Director Chris Miller was present and briefly summarized the RCA detail related to long-term facility options of the Roseville License Center.

Mayor Roe recognized supervisory personnel present in the audience and thanked them for their attendance.

 

Mr. Miller reviewed the various discussions that had occurred over the last decade related to the License Center, noting it had been located in its current location since 2000 and partially remodeled in 2005.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to explore options for a city-owned facility, opining that he wasn't interested in exploring too many other locations beyond or near the City Hall campus.  Councilmember Willmus suggested the need to look at the bigger picture along with this facility, including storage needs for the Public Works and Parks & Recreation department; as well as addressing collaborative efforts across departments and other opportunities that may present themselves.

 

If the facility were to continue leasing space at its current location, Councilmember Etten asked Finance Director Miller if he thought space would be available to expand the Center in a logical manner.  Based on his recent experience on-site, Councilmember Etten agreed that more space was definitely needed for more efficient functionality; but asked if that would be possible in this location.

 

Finance Director Miller responded that in initial conversations with property owners to-date, they were aware of the City's interest in expanding and pursuing that route.  However, Mr. Miller noted that became tricky with existing tenants in the building and would need to be finessed accordingly to obtain contiguous space.  Also, Mr. Miller noted additional space for strip mall expansion was possibly available, and had been proposed by the owner over the last fifteen years to no avail. However, Mr. Miller recognized that as another potential option for the city as well, even though staff hadn't pursued that particular option at this point.  Mr. Miller noted the need to consider the future and continued viability of the entire shopping center, and whether or not expanding it to the north was prudent based on economics and market considerations and based on the fair amount of turnover in building tenants.  Mr. Miller further noted that the License Center brought considerable traffic into the center.

 

Councilmember Etten asked that Finance Director Miller speak to his thoughts on specific locations if the city chose to build its own facility.

 

Finance Director Miller stated his personal reluctance to publically identify any specific locations at this point, and noted that this general location for the License Center had worked well to-date and in conjunction with other activities happening at the City Hall campus.  Mr. Miller noted that the traffic brought to the vicinity by the License Center enhanced some of the other city services; and therefore from staff's perspective he was aware of a strong desire to look in this general vicinity to continue or promote efficiencies in work flow with that close proximity.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with the thoughts expressed by Councilmember Willmus; stating that she'd like to see the city have its own space and make changes to enhance a city asset, as well as addressing other storage needs, which she found to be a good mix for uses.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she couldn't imagine storage being any more useful in this vicinity and further opined that she would be less in favor of enhancing rental or leased space versus a city-owned facility.  Councilmember McGehee opined that expanding would become more expensive and at that point could be comparable with long-term capital maintenance of a city facility; and therefore supported staff investigating potential locations.

 

Finance Director Miller responded to two considerations:

1)   Staff discussions have been held at a Department Head level about the city organization's space needs, outside and inside, as well as the potential for other office space needs.  Mr. Miller expressed his appreciation for the suggestion that staff look beyond the License Center needs, opining that made sense.

2)   If the City Council's direction to staff is to explore those options, Mr. Miller note that this would take time; and in the meantime, the License Center lease period became tighter and a conversation may be needed within the next few months and before that lease expires, related to a short-term extension to buy additional time for other options to be considered and/or acted upon.

 

Mayor Roe spoke in agreement with the comments and potential options supported by his colleagues, and recognized the timeframe involved.  Mayor Roe echoed those comments for staff to review a multi-purpose facility, and expressed his definite support for such a facility fairly close to the City Hall campus if not on the campus itself.  Mayor Roe also threw out the community center concept as part of this discussion, opining it would be interesting to see how that long-range plan may fit together with existing and near-term needs.  Mayor Roe noted that this didn't necessarily mean one big project, but perhaps the thought process going forward could take into consideration phasing options.  Mayor Roe noted that such a link had also come up during the Park Master Plan process; and also noted needs of the Roseville Visitor's Association and other things that could be tied into this discussion or at least be on the radar.

 

b.            National League of Cities Sewer and Water Line Warranty Program

Public Works Director Marc Culver referenced information provided in the RCA related to the National League of Cities endorsement of the Utility Service Partners, Inc. (USP) sewer and water line warranty program; and previous discussions as to whether the City of Roseville was interested in an agreement with USP to offer this warranty program to Roseville residents.

 

As previously requested by the City Council, Mr. Culver provided additional information and research of other Minnesota municipalities using the warranty program, and related opportunities and costs involved.

 

Mr. Culver reported that nine Minnesota cities partnered with USP (Oak Park Heights, Columbia Heights, St. Louis Park, Hawley, Pelican Rapids, Perham, St. Michael, Falcon Heights and Richfield); with an active enrollment in Minnesota of over 5,800 households, over 650 claims filed to-date and the amount of claims paid out of over $430,000.

 

Mr. Culver reported on his discussion with some of those individual cities, advising that he found overall satisfaction indicated with the program to-date.  Specific information was provided to Mr. Culver by the City of St. Louis Park; but he clarified that many cities were still new to the program and didn't yet having actual claims or positive or negative experiences to relay.  Based on those conversations, Mr. Culver advised that the biggest resident complaint heard by member cities was with the marketing letters used by USP, the use of city letterhead, receipt by residents of three separate letters, one for each service; and lack of ability for enrolling in all three programs at once for those interested without calling UPS directly.  Mr. Culver advised that other complaints dealt with what USP covered for a repair versus what work the resident felt should be done (e.g. replace entire service line instead of fixing one spot). 

 

Mr. Culver noted some minor changes to the USP marketing agreement since last its last iteration (Exhibit A, Section IV) with the scope of coverage and additional language for replacement or repair of backflow preventers to sewer lines; and inclusion of language covering thawing of frozen external water lines.  Also, based on City Council feedback, Mr. Culver noted that USP had agreed with the option of removing Section 4 entitled "Consideration" that established the $0.50 license fee to the city that could be reduced and applied directly to resident fees to reduce their cost for participating in the warranty program.

 

Mr. Culver concluded his presentation by noting that the City Attorney recommended additional language in marketing materials sent to residents that more clearly clarified that the warranty program was not a city program and the city was not responsible for any losses incurred by homeowners resulting from their participation.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that he had been somewhat intrigued by this warranty program when it was first presented; however, he found himself now less inclined to support it.  Councilmember Willmus noted his concern with the city disclaimed endorsement and use of the city logo and name with this program.  More importantly, Councilmember Willmus noted a number of small businesses (plumbers) in Roseville, some family-owned and his inability at this time to know how this warranty program may or may not impact them.  Without hearing from those businesses personally, Councilmember Willmus stated his hesitancy in pursuing this program.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her similar thoughts even though she hadn't thought of the impact on small business owners.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she definitely didn't like the city endorsement of this, with or without the disclaimer, and opined that residents would still believe the city thought it was a good idea and supported the warranty program.  Unless the city was willing to arbitrate problems between this insurance company and residents, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city was simply asking for trouble.  Councilmember McGehee noted that this is an insurance company and their goal was to make money by offering the service.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that if the average homeowner in Roseville, experiencing the typical and most common problem with roots in sewer lines, simply periodically paying for maintaining the line by removing roots, they would save a significant amount of money compared to utilizing this service.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that this wasn't a good value for Roseville residents or customers, and may actually hurt some small local businesses; and presented too many unknowns and potential problems, and restated her concern with and opposition to this in any way being viewed as a city-supported program.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that sewer clean-ups are currently covered by the city through self-insurance and not through the League of Minnesota Cities; with Mr. Culver confirming that information that sewer clean-ups were reimbursed at cost by the city as indicated.

 

While not being adamant, Councilmember Etten stated that he wasn't strongly supportive of the warranty program based on several aspects he didn't like; and given the opinion expressed by his colleagues, agreed with them in not supporting the program.

 

Mayor Roe concurred with his colleagues, including use of city letterhead.  On balance, Mayor Roe stated that it didn't make sense for the city to enter into the agreement at this time.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested taking advantage of the material provided during this consideration; as well as stepping up educational materials and efforts made available to residents related to periodic maintenance of root problems and advantages of a backflow preventer.

 

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, NOT entering into an agreement with USP for their warranty program.

 

Councilmember Etten thanked staff for their time and effort spent in researching this option.

                   Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

 

c.            Private Sewer Service Lining Discussion

Public Works Director Marc Culver briefly reviewed information presented by Mr. Paul Pasko from S.E.H., Inc to the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) at a recent meeting.  Mr. Culver recognized Mr. Pasko as an expert in this field, and with his permission, reviewed those presentation materials and summarized the information.

 

Discussion ensued in clarifying differentials between a mandated or programmatic application of lining private sewer service laterals; current process in pre-project video inspection and older lines indicating lining versus newer PVC pipe construction; location of most issues at the "wye" connection point; and City of Roseville wye connections usually within the city rights-of-way.

 

Mr. Culver used the City of Golden Valley, mandating a point of sale inspection for homes, and other communities concentrating at the wye connection due to higher infiltration issues.

 

If the City considered opening discussion on ownership of laterals at the right-of-way or main, Councilmember Willmus questioned how that would inform the discussion and city cost going forward.

 

Mr. Culver responded that the biggest issue in changing the ownership point and that discussion would involve maintenance of lines at the wye or in the rights-of-way, and how to address sewer lines without a cleanout at the point where that ownership changes.  Mr. Culver noted the frequent difficulty in determining that cleanout location and/or infiltration or break area was at, whether on the public or private side, until expending dollars to investigate that.  Mr. Culver noted that this also created confusion as to where the problem happened and who was at fault.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his rationale in asking the question was based on staff's previous matrix showing about half those metropolitan communities around Roseville had ownership at the right-of-way.

 

Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Culver, that the ownership referenced by Councilmember Willmus was specific to the water lines.

 

Mr. Culver noted his recent survey completed at the request of the PWETC indicating that of forty-seven responses, only two communities had different ownership for the lateral for the sanitary sewer; otherwise he found it about 50/50 for those communities retaining ownership to the valve box or to the main, specific to water services.

 

Councilmember McGehee admitted this was a question she continued to struggle with; and provided personal anecdotal information.  At the very least, Councilmember McGehee suggested any program be required to start from the city side so no damage was done by an inept private contractor on the city's infrastructure.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver advised that it would be unusual for private property owners to be able to bypass the city main due to working with robots, and inaccessibility of their lines other than from the city main at that connection point.  Mr. Culver clarified that any contractors performing the work for a private homeowner would still be licensed/qualified and need to pull a permit and have their work inspected.  While this could be done from inside a home, Mr. Culver noted it would require some oversight, unless the city preferred to perform the lining on a more wholesale front and obtain more economy of scale.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the city was on the forefront of doing this right; and with completion in the future of lining its mains, resulting in an approximate 50-year warranty on that product, it seemed if the entire system, whether privately or publically owned, could be lined, it would prove financially beneficial to residents and the right thing for the city to do as part of the overall update of its infrastructure.  While recognizing that there were many moving parts and things to consider, Councilmember McGehee expressed her personal support for this option to assist residents versus that of offering the aforementioned warranty program.

 

Councilmember Etten noted two different options to require this inspection or lining: at the point of sale, or as part of the city's inspection of mains and proceeding a minimum available distance into those lateral lines deemed problematic.  If that inspection indicated problems, Councilmember Etten opined that the city could then require a property owner to meet the city standards.  Councilmember Etten opined that he thought that would be the right way to move forward long-term for the benefit of the city and all of its taxpayers, expressing his personal interest in having that piece of mind in lining laterals.  While the requirement portion may require finessing, Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in working through that portion; and offered his support for some type of incentive program if the city mandated compliance as a way to help may that compliance happen by participating in part of those costs.

 

Specific to a trigger for mandating compliance whether at the point of sale or addressing specific geographic areas of the city, Councilmember Willmus stated that without knowing more about it, he'd probably be resistant to inspections at the point of sale.

 

While wanting to solve the broader community problems, Mayor Roe stated his agreement in hesitating to make this mandatory, since people owned their own service laterals. Some Roseville residents, may just be willing to address roots in the sewer lines every few years and have the city or government leave them alone.  Mayor Roe noted the need to deal with that preference if deciding to go with something mandatory.  However, if the city proceeded to address a targeted number of service laterals annually and as part of that seek interested residents, Mayor Roe opined that may be a more popular approach.  Under that scenario, Mayor Roe stated that if insufficient interest or sign-up from residents in that particular area, the work wouldn't be done.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that if considering economy of scale by concentrating on a geographic area versus citywide, from the city's perspective if people chose not to participate, the city could still take responsibility up to the wye or take responsibility for the right-of-way or to the edge or it, and that was found to sufficiently impact the inflow and infiltration (I & I) issues, it may result in encouraging residents to sign-up, but at a minimum complete the city portion to avoid having to dig up streets between projects.

 

Mayor Roe stated that he still saw it from the perspective of a certain geographical area, recognizing that lining of the main and lining laterals were two separate projects, while still attempting to avoid major or multiple interruptions in service or needing to bypass them multiple times.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that, as talked about by Councilmembers before, when the city performed street rehabilitation, residents could have their driveways done as part of the project and with that contractor, but as a private expense.  Councilmember Etten stated that similarly his preference would be for residents being able to sign up in those areas as well for having their laterals lines, with incentives provided by the city for doing so at that time and proving less expensive for private property owners versus having something done on their own or in an emergency situation.  Under that option, Councilmember Etten suggested doing the older parts of the city first as probably the most problematic areas,

 

Councilmember McGehee clarified that, with her suggestion that residents participate in the city's televising of certain sections, and if lines appear to be failing from the view given during the inspection of the mains, homeowners be advised and offered an incentive for the city to defray costs if they participate now, and possibly by rolling that cost into property assessments versus an immediate payment.

 

Motion to Extend City Council Curfew

At approximately 10:00, McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, extending the curfew to complete discussion of this topic.

 

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Mayor Roe noted that there were two different contractors and processes for the main versus laterals.  Mayor Roe asked staff if there was a certain period between being able to do laterals after lining the main.

 

Mr. Culver responded that, while there was some curing time and clean-up required where the laterals are cut out to make them ready to accept and not damage a new liner, there wasn't any significant time involved.  Mr. Culver offered to obtain additional information specific to that; but noted the preference would be to not bypass the line for too long.  Given the amount of experience by the City of Golden Valley in lining "shorties" or wyes, Mr. Culver offered to get additional information from them on how they performed the lining of mains and then laterals and specific timing involved.

 

Mayor Roe expressed interest in having that additional information.

 

In considering discussion of the city participating in some of these costs, Mr. Culver reminded Councilmembers that doing so would have significant impacts on sewer utility rates.  Mr. Culver noted the remaining work yet to be done on the main infrastructure, including lift stations, force main lines and the mains themselves.  If this additional cost is added on, Mr. Culver noted that it would seriously impact that fund.

 

Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Culver for that reminder; noting it would require residents to buy into the program and be ready to absorb those higher sewer rates as well.

 

16.      City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon distributed a preview of upcoming agenda items.

 

17.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

18.      Adjourn

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:04 p.m.

         

Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: None.