City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

August 8, 2016

 

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.  Councilmember Willmus arrived at approximately 6:08 p.m.

 

2.         Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.         Approve Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon clarified that agenda item 12.b did not require a public hearing; and therefore requested the item be moved to Business/Action Item 14.a, amending other items listed in that agenda section to Item 14.b and 14.c accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: 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.  No one appeared to speak.

 

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

Councilmember Willmus arrived at this time.

 

Mayor Roe announced upcoming Playground Builds at Upper Villa and Central Parks; a film festival celebrating women voting, so-sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Human Rights Commissions with the Cities of Roseville and Shoreview; and a community information sharing meeting of the Cedarholm Clubhouse Replacement Advisory Team.

 

Mayor Roe also announced the Human Rights Commission's celebration of unsung heroes working to
build an atmosphere of fairness and equal treatment in Roseville, and
recognition of those heroes through a citizen award, with information on how to
submit nominations.

 

City Manager Trudgeon provided an update on upcoming Discover Your Parks events at Reservoir Woods and Maplewood Park.

 

In her new role as a board member of Metro Cities, Councilmember Laliberte reported on recent policy committee meetings and specific highlights of those held and those upcoming in updating and revising policy for 2017 legislative sessions.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted that he also served on the Metro Cities Housing & Economic Development Policy committee and briefly reported on their activities.

 

6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

a.            Donation from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation

As detailed in the Request for Council Action dated August 8, 2016, Police Administrative Lieutenant Lorne Rosand recognized the recent donation by Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation of an automated external defibrillator.  Lt. Rosand advised that a representative of the firm was unable to attend tonight's meeting due to
a last minute scheduling conflict at one of their restaurant locations.

 

Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, approval of accepting a donation of one Cardiac Science GF automated external defibrillator (AED) at an estimated value of $1,700.00 from the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation to the Roseville Police Department.

Mayor Roe and Councilmembers thanked the foundation for their business's support
of the community.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

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 25, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the July 25, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.

 

Corrections:

·         Page 1, Typographical Corrections (Laliberte)

Line 17: Change "that" to "the"

Line 41: Change "include" to "notify"

·         Page 17, Lines 6-7 (McGehee)

Change to read: "monoxide deters[.] [due to their personal sensitivities,}"

·         Page 13, Typographical Corrections

Line 1 (Roe): Change "was" to "were"

Line 10 (McGehee): Strike "that"

·         Page 14,

Line 10 (Roe): Insert "[in]" before HDR-2

                        Line 33 - 34 (Etten): Change to read: "Councilmember Etten stated that would alleviate some of his concerns; [and agreed] [but still did not agree] with the setbacks for HDR-2, which [were now] [are] often significantly less than"

·         Page 15, Line 40 (Roe)

Delete "and"

·         Page 17, Line 43 (McGehee)

Typographical Correction: "inadequate"

·         Page 20, Line 39 (Roe)

Delete "to"

·         Page 21 (Laliberte)

Typographical Correction: Change "full" to "fall"

·         Page 22, Lines 7 - 9 (Roe)

Correct to read: "[Councilmember] Etten [moved] suggested"

·         Page 23, Lin 11 (McGehee)

Typographical Correction: Change "an" to "and"

·         Page 30, Typographical Corrections (McGehee)

Line 17: change "topic" to "topics"

Line 18: delete "and"

·         Page 32, Line 20 (Roe)

Change "amendment" to "language"

·         Page 33 (Laliberte)

Lines 7- 8: Change to read: "and while [not] [she may not be] opposed to it remaining"

Line 33 (Roe): Do not strike "and"

·         Page 37, Line 31 (Laliberte)

Typographical Correction: Change "those" to "any"

 

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee 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) dated July 25, 2016 and related attachments.

 

a.            Approve Payments

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

 

ACH Payments	$565,498.90
82362 - 82551	1,120,595.34
TOTAL	$1,686,094.24

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

              

b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of new 2016-2017 Massage Therapist Licenses and Renewal of a Gas Station and Cigarette/Tobacco Products License for 2016-2017 as detailed, dependent on completion of successful background checks.

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

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

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated August 8, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated July 31, 2016.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

d.            Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11343 entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or Beyond."

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

f.             Authorize Entering into a Contract with Accela for a New Permitting, Inspections, Code Enforcement and Licensing Software System

Mayor Roe noted the cost benefit analysis performed by staff at the request of a member of the Finance Commission, indicated an annual savings of approximately $40,000 in staff time spent on work tasks now needed with the current systems.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to enter into a standard agreement for professional services (Attachment A) with Accela to implement a new software solution for permits, inspections, licensing and code enforcement; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the applicable documents.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

g.            Authorizing Entering into a Professional Services Agreement with Economic Development and Public Financing Firm, Ehlers, Inc., for the Creation of a Public Financing Application and Policy

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, authorizing staff to enter into a standard agreement for professional services (Attachment B) with Ehlers, Inc. for the creation of a public financing policy, creation of a public assistance application, and to retain Ehlers, Inc. "on-call" for any future policy development or policy
maintenance; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the applicable
documents.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

h.            Extend Cooperative Facility Use Agreement with Roseville Area School District

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11344 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution for the Extension of a Cooperative Facility Use Agreement with Roseville Area School District."

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

i.             Approve Resolution Receiving Assessment Roll and Setting Assessment Hearing Date for Victoria Street Project

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11345 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Declaring Costs and Receiving Proposed Special Assessment Roll for P-ST-SW-W-15-02 Victoria Street Reconstruction Project and Providing for Public Hearings;" establishing a public hearing on September 12, 2016 atthe regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

e.                    Approve Fairview Traffic Control Signal Agreement

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated July 25, 2016 and related attachments.

 

By way of additional information for public awareness, Councilmember McGehee noted the total cost to the city for installation of this signal would be $224,610 in addition to the electricity costs once installed estimated at $3,000 to $4,000 per year.  Councilmember McGehee noted the cost to the city when initiating signal installation versus Ramsey County installation.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of entering into an Agreement for Maintenance of Traffic Control Signals Agreement No. PW2016-02M with Ramsey County Public Works (Attachment A)

 

Councilmember McGehee noted her ongoing objection to the construction of Twin Lakes Parkway and future related changes that she opined would prove problematic.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

10.        General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Request to Amend City Code Section 1011.12 to Opt Out of the Requirements of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462.3593 Pertaining to Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings (PROJ0017-Amdt. 29)

As detailed in the RCA, City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this request to amend city code (Section 1011.12) to opt out of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462.3593 pertaining to temporary family health care dwellings to allow more review and Roseville-specific flexibility with this type of housing unit. 

 

Councilmember Laliberte pointed out that this topic had been covered earlier today at the Metro Cities meeting, and through a show of hands of cities choosing to opt out, every city in attendance indicated that opt out option.  Councilmember Laliberte further noted that the League of Cities (LMC) representative attending that meeting noted that, while this opt out process seemed frustrating, it provided a better scenario than the current legislation was requiring.  Once the legislature becomes aware of these collective city opt outs, the LMC representative cautioned cities to beware of future potential attempts by the legislature to attempt a more firm position.  Councilmember Laliberte advised that the LMC representative was seeking anecdotal information from each member city for their rationale in opting out for incorporation of that information for the legislature if and when this issue came back up.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her opposition to the proposed statutory language in its present form, opining it was ridiculous to have a six month time limit and one year maximum in attempting to address mental and/or physical impairment issues that typically took longer to resolve.  As for addressing the aging population or hospice or dementia situations, Councilmember McGehee opined that proposed statutory language was not appropriate as stated.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in the community discussion of these issues and the City's
proper structuring of city code language to facilitate a reasonable approach
for this temporary housing.

 

After staff and the Planning Commission's analysis and study after opting out, and recommended
language to the City Council, Mayor Roe noted one option at that time may be to
decide to opt back in to the state legislation.  However, Mayor Roe referenced
the City of Roseville's current accessory dwelling unit provisions in city
code, and suggested that may be an option in revising that existing language. 

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted the state requirements that current municipal ordinance could not simply use is existing accessory dwelling or recreational vehicle language to address this temporary dwelling unit issue without amending it to adapt the intent.

 

Mr. Paschke concurred, suggesting the city might prefer adopting its own ordinance and create its own process to support these temporary structures versus going with state language as currently proposed.

 

Mayor Roe recognized that community and advisory commission input would inform the city's
ordinance language going forward.  However, Mayor Roe noted statutory
requirements that cities have to comply with State language unless opting out
by September 1, 2016 did not allow an opportunity to gather input or for more
in-depth consideration before that deadline.

 

Laliberte moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1507 (RCA Exhibit B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of Roseville City Code to Opt Out of the Requirements of Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462.3593, Which Defines and Regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings (PROJ0017-AMDT29);" as amended with correction of the spelling of "ordinance" on line 2 of the draft ordinance.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

11.        Presentations

 

a.            Receive Presentation and Discuss Creating a Public Finance Policy with Economic Development Representatives from Ehlers, Inc.

Interim Community Development Director Kari Collins referenced the RCA as a preamble to tonight's presentation.  Ms. Collins introduced Stacie Kvilvang & Jason
Aarsvold of Ehlers, Inc.

 

Ms. Kvilvang provided a historical background of the Ehlers firm, a Roseville business located on Cleveland Avenue, and a brief personal biography and specific expertise of she and Mr. Aarsvold in the public finance field.  With both of them having experience from their previous employment with economic and community development in the City of Brooklyn Park, MN, Ms. Kvilvang noted that municipality had also followed a similar route as that of Roseville in moving from a Housing & Redevelopment Authority to an EDA.

 

Ms. Kvilvang's
presentation included a project overview for the newly-created REDA and initial
requirements and development of necessary policies, and benefits in having the
City Council directly involved in the REDA.  Ms. Kvilgang reviewed those
policies required by state statute subsequently informing the direction to
staff on what projects the REDA would like to assist specific to development/redevelopment
priorities.  Ms. Kvilvang noted this would allow staff to weed out projects not
meeting REDA goals; and for those projects that may be considered borderline,
would allow staff to bring them forward to the REDA at a work session.  Ms. Kvilvang
noted this process and established policies would also provide developers with
an understanding of REDA expectations.

 

Ms. Kvilvang reviewed business subsidies as per state statute and criteria, including tax increment financing as it had evolved over a number of years and tax abatement.  Ms. Kvilvang noted twenty-three exemptions under those subsidies that would be part of the consideration for policy development.

 

In conclusion, Ms. Kvilvang reviewed a spreadsheet of homework questions for individual REDA members (attachments A and B) to submit to staff by August 17, 2017 to allow collation of the information and prepare for the August 29. 2016 REDA meeting and discussion at that time.    

 

Ms. Kvilvang asked the REDA to consider additional information not included in the spreadsheet:

1)   Will you waive city fees (park dedication fees, trunk charges, water access (WAC) or sewer access charges (SAC), building permit fees;

2)   Is there any development you wouldn't consider giving assistance for - (e.g. doesn't meet city goals or for philosophical reasons).

 

Ms. Kvilvang clarified that this information would be anonymous, but provide an overview of public financing preferences and best practice applications to develop a Public Financing Policy for the REDA's review and consideration.  With REDA subsequent approval of a draft policy, Ms. Kvilvang noted the public hearing and comment opportunity could then proceed.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked for an electronic copy of the spreadsheet for completion; and Councilmember Laliberte asked for a copy of tonight's Power Point presentation
via email.

 

Discussion ensued with Ms. Kvilvang, Ms. Collins and council members including acknowledgement and separation of city fees as part of the potential subsidy discussion; need for awareness of existing SAC fee deferment or loan programs offered through the Metropolitan Council or city participation in those programs to avoid making decisions in a vacuum; and identification of individual goals desired and criteria definition as part of the process and for incorporation in future discussions.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mayor Roe suggested that existing policies used by the city on past projects be considered "old" and that the City Council start fresh using consistent criteria to ensure the policy is relevant going forward.  As an example, Ms. Kvilvang noted the many requirements in the existing tax increment financing housing criteria no longer applicable.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe specific to the wage floor concept and a possible tiered approach within a certain range that would apply to the level of assistance depending on the range, Ms. Kvilvang cautioned not to overcomplicate it, but to simply use a floor.  Ms. Kvilvang advised that this still allowed for the ability to negotiate but provided staff clear direction on what the REDA was seeking based on whether or not it was seeking higher wage jobs as the key criteria for development or redevelopment.

 

For clarification purposes, Ms. Kvilvang noted that, for this exercise, salary excluded benefits to keep the analysis and future reporting as simplistic as possible.

 

In response to Councilmember Etten, Ms. Kvilvang agreed that the REDA select either minimum or average wage for their criteria rather than categories; with the ultimate goal being to define what was most important to the city.

 

12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration

 

a.            Public Hearing to Approve/Deny an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License for The Grey Duck Kitchen and Bar, d/b/a The Grey Duck Kitchen and Bar, located at 582 Rosedale Center, Suite #1010

As detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed this request, noting this establishment was located in the former Digby's Restaurant space. Mr. Miller further advised that an applicant representative was unable to attend tonight's meeting.

 

Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:02 p.m. for the purpose of receiving public input on the above-referenced liquor license applications, with no one appearing for or against.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Finance Director Miller confirmed that all applicants received server trainer information as part of the application process.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of The Grey Duck Kitchen and Bar's request for
an On-Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor License, located at 582 Rosedale
Center #1010, for the term of September 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

c.         Public Improvement Hearing for Owasso Private Drive

Mayor Roe and City Manager Trudgeon followed public improvement hearing protocol, as prescribed in Attachment A to this RCA.

 

Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer briefly summarized the feasibility report findings and history of the process to-date, as detailed in the RCA and attachments.

 

Following staff's presentation, City Council questions and staff responses specific to the project included length of assessment deferrals for individual properties continuing for the duration of that particular property owner?s interest in the property as defined by Ramsey County assessment standards and typically triggered by transfer of ownership of a property at which time it no longer met the hardship requirement for that deferment; clarification that the assessment can be paid upfront to avoid interest rather than via 15 years of payments; and verification that a vertical curb would be installed on the railroad track side to provide separation of the paved drain system, but would not include a gutter.

 

Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 7:13 p.m. for the purpose of receiving public input on proposed storm water improvements on Owasso Private Drive.  Since tonight's meeting schedule was running ahead of schedule, at
approximately 7:14 p.m., without objection, Mayor Roe suspended the public
hearing and potential action to allow time for interested residents to arrive
at the meeting to speak to the issue.

 

13.        Budget Items

 

14.        Business Items (Action Items)

 

a.            Request for Approval of a Recombination Minor Subdivision at Roselawn Avenue and Chatsworth Street (PF16-023)

Mayor Roe asked for public comment on this proposed recombination minor subdivision. No one appeared to speak for or against the proposal.

 

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this simple proposal by applicants to transfer the southernmost 20' of land from 974 Roselawn Avenue, the "donor" parcel to the northern side of 1896 Chatsworth Street, the "receiving" parcel. Mr. Paschke noted the request was detailed in the RCA and that staff recommended approval as conditioned.

 

McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the request to transfer the southernmost twenty feet of the entire width of the property at 974 Roselawn Avenue to the abutting property at 1896 Chatsworth Street; based on the comments and findings, and subject to conditions as stated in lines 62 - 66 of the RCA dated August 8, 2016.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked staff for working this out with property owners.

 

Mayor Roe noted this made an existing nonconforming lot into a conforming lot, also a good thing.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Stormwater Impact Fund

As detailed in the RCA, Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer reviewed the latest draft of the proposed Stormwater Impact Fund Policy for City Council review and consideration.

 

Councilmember McGehee sought clarification as to where the stormwater ultimately went if not on a specific property, and whether that water was then moved to adjacent properties due to additional impervious surface on that lot.

 

Mr. Freihammer reviewed best management practice (BMP) options available for residential property owners to mitigate the stormwater on site or pay the fee and have the city apply that funding to a larger regional project, or for a project as close to the site as possible either within that stormwater district or a larger stormwater district.  Mr. Freihammer noted this could involve a public system that the city would maintain or expansion of an existing system.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her difficulty in understanding the financing of this, apparently asking a resident for a one-time fee for the city to ultimately have the expense to create and install a BMP somewhere else as well as maintaining it, with only that one-time minimum payment paid.  Councilmember McGehee opined that if the individual had to install a similar project on their own property it would cost them potentially twice as much.  In this case, Councilmember McGehee further opined that the city ended up stuck with their runoff, installation or construction costs, and maintenance of the BMP long-term from that one-time calculation.  Councilmember McGehee noted the frequent, significant rainfalls of recent years, and questioned how those economies of scale compared to all city residents paying for a stormwater mitigation project versus the individual property creating the issue due to exceeding or not meeting the city's policy for impervious coverage on their lot.

 

Mr. Freihammer clarified that the fee was based on a certain dollar amount yet to be established per cubic foot; and based on the approximate cost to treat or mitigate the calculated water flow from that individual parcel.

 

From his perspective, Mayor Roe suggested the fee was justified to apply to a larger city project, providing more economies of scale.

 

Councilmember Etten referenced an earlier discussion he had with staff today, expressing his personal concerns.  As an example, Councilmember Etten noted the lot split request that came to the City Council several weeks and long-term area flooding and city responsibility to correct it still pending.  With this policy suggesting more latitude for stormwater mitigation in that area or even further away, Councilmember Etten stated it became a policy issue for him.  Councilmember Etten suggested this be addressed separately for residential areas and commercial areas.  In commercial areas, Councilmember Etten noted there was typically more structure to what they were doing to facilitate a larger project, especially with their additional impervious coverage.  Councilmember Etten asked how and where the 30% maximum impervious coverage calculation came in and what efforts were available to encourage not exceeding that percentage.  As another example, even on the minor subdivision granted tonight for the Chatsworth and Roselawn properties, Councilmember Etten where was the city's
acceptable line; and whether or not there was a way available to mitigate
additional runoff or if and how the homeowner could or would consider other
options.  As noted by Councilmember McGehee, Councilmember Etten opined that
the city may be creating unintended circumstances in approving such an option
to pay a fee.  However, Councilmember Etten suggested the policy may work for
commercial and/or infill situations.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked staff what the driver was for this proposed policy.

 

Mr. Freihammer responded that numerous examples had occurred, both a mix of commercial and residential areas, with one main commercial property actually driving consideration of such a policy and currently in the preliminary permit stage.  Mr. Freihammer noted that property, as well as some others, found it difficult to meet the city's stormwater requirements when there was no existing
stormwater system in which to discharge.  Also with residential properties, Mr.
Freihammer advised this could provide an alternative for property owners as an
easier way to accomplish their requirements and an easier way for the city to
track BMP's and/or fees.  Mr. Freihammer noted the city was just now getting
started on recertifying BMP's that were installed some time ago; and finding
some of those older rain gardens would be difficult to qualify for
recertification without the property owner having to completely rebuild them.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked if this tool was made available if and when no on-site land area was available to accommodate mitigation, would it allow the city to construct something off-site to mitigate water flowing into that area in the first place.

 

Mr. Freihammer responded it would depend on the specific location, and if the city had a project in the immediate vicinity that could be expanded to accommodate that mitigation.  Mr. Freihammer advised there were some areas where it was difficult for the city to find a location nearby that might require stepping out further and not significantly impact stormwater management or benefit that immediate neighborhood having the actual issue.

 

Along that same line, Councilmember Laliberte noted even if the city banked the monies received in a particular case, any larger mitigation project may cost ten times the amount of the fee collected, causing the rest of the city's residents
to foot the bill for what needed to be done to address additional stormwater
runoff.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she would find it helpful in the future
for the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (P)WETC meeting
minutes to be provided for reference in these discussions, even if it only provided
their hesitation or reasoning voiced during their discussions, if no formal
recommendation came forward.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she valued
that citizen advisory discussion, and having it included in agenda packet
materials was helpful in her deliberations.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his support of some of the underlying thought provided in this draft policy, but further stated he didn't know if he had enough information on
the particulars and consequences regarding application of fees or setting
rates.  Therefore, at this point, Councilmember Willmus stated he would not
feel comfortable moving forward with this policy; and was in agreement with
Councilmembers Etten and McGehee's concerns.  If those concerns could be addressed
and resolved, Councilmember Willmus stated that may provide him with more
insight to move forward, but not at this point.

 

Councilmember McGehee seconded the remarks of Councilmember Etten related to fees, especially with a front-end fixed fee given recent and frequent significant rainfall events. 

 

Mayor Roe clarified that the fees would be included in the city's annual fee schedule
for annual review, or even more frequently if determined necessary and at the City
Council's discretion.  Mayor Roe further clarified that staff was recommending
that the fees be calculated on the cubic foot of stormwater mitigation
required, depending on each specific property - whether residential or commercial. 
From his understanding, Mayor Roe noted staff's perspective was that this could
serve as an alternative for a residential homeowner versus their installation
and construction, along ongoing maintenance costs for a raingarden.

 

Specific to impervious coverage calculations, Mayor Roe noted the city set a standard to minimize impervious surface, but if someone was unable to stay under that limit, they would experience a cost to exceed that maximum amount.  However, Mayor Roe noted there was also a cost to install a BMP and have it recertified every five years if that was the option they chose rather than this option.  Mayor Roe noted that, either way, stormwater would still be mitigated either on-site or through a more regional site, making some sense to the initial logic.  Mayor Roe noted the design standard would remain the same for City BMP's under this proposed policy as with any others; and stated that standard could
always be changed because of perceptions that heavier and more intense
rainfalls are occurring.  Mayor Roe noted it may make sense to have that
discussion at a later point, but he wasn't sure the fee option was the
appropriate place or way to do so.

 

Mayor Roe noted Attachment A, Sections 1, 2 and 3 addressing older residential properties versus commercial and new residential properties, which he found confusing.  Mayor Roe sought clarification if Section 2 applied to all projects or only certain ones, and suggested staff further clarify and refine the policy language on that point,

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested having a conversation and developing a policy specific to commercial properties, since residential properties were more complicated.

 

Mayor Roe stated he wasn't sure he wanted to segregate residential and commercial
properties.  While there is an issue with residential attempting some of these
projects, without ongoing maintenance and not meeting recertification requirements,
Mayor Roe stated the entire issue needed further discussion before one or the
other type of land use was removed.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed that was a bigger policy discussion; and while he was more comfortable with the commercial aspect, he didn't mean to imply people could
pay a one-time fee and get off without addressing the point source of
stormwater.  As noted in the recent subdivision denial he referenced earlier
during this discussion, Councilmember Etten noted residents in that area
referring to one home in particular that far exceeded the impervious surface
percentage; and questioned how the city's requirements and restrictions allowed
those things to happen.  Councilmember Etten opined that those rules for
residential properties needed reviewed, monitored and enforced.  Councilmember
Etten agreed that some of the current language is confusing, specifically
addressing the age of a residential property (twenty years or older). 
Councilmember Etten stated he'd like to see this draft policy again, but just
to address commercial properties; followed by a broader discussion for
residential properties.

 

As part of that broader policy discussion, Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in the value added for recertification of BMP's or city cost to build and
maintain infrastructure, and city responsibility versus that of individual
property owners.

 

On the commercial side, Mayor Roe reiterated his concern in considering the commercial aspect separate from the residential, because commercial sites actually create greater stormwater issues due to their extensive impervious surfaces, and using this fee policy moves a greater amount of stormwater off commercial sites for city treatment elsewhere than would any single residential site under this policy.

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to return with draft policy revisions addressing points and issues raised and discussed tonight, and including PWETC meeting minutes to-date where they considered this policy; and to include any future or subsequent discussions they may have on the issue at their discretion.

 

12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration (continued)

 

c.            Public Improvement Hearing for Owasso Private Drive (continued)

Recognizing the arrival of several residents in the audience, at approximately 7:41 pm, Mayor Roe reopened the public hearing to receive public input on proposed storm water improvements on Owasso Private Drive.  For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Roe provided a brief recap of the process completed so far to-night.

 

Public Comment

John Torgerson, 337 S Owasso Blvd.

Mr. Torgerson thanked the City Council and their planning/engineering department staff for the work on this project.  Mr. Torgerson spoke in 100% support of the project moving forward; opining it would benefit not only adjacent property owners, but also the city, watershed district, and anyone using Lake Owasso.

 

Daniel Peterson, 345 S Owasso Blvd.

In his observations from biking along the lake, Mr. Peterson noted some deterioration in pervious materials used by the City of Shoreview, but gave them credit to taking those positive steps. 

 

Mr. Peterson opined that everyone along their private drive had looked at the proposed plan for paver installation; and in their inspection of a similar project approximately three years old, had found that material to still be in excellent condition. 

 

Regarding maintenance of this private road that had been brought up at a recent City Council meeting, Mr. Peterson clarified that due to the width of the private drive, the city pickup truck came down the road and back up due to its width.  However, Mr. Peterson further clarified that the remainder of the road was maintained by adjacent property owners, and was not considered a regular full-time city snow route similar to a public road.

 

Mr. Peterson sated he had an independent environmental engineer friend look at the proposed project, and had agreed with his preference for using the east side of his parcel for the project from the road to the lake and requiring no full-time maintenance.  Therefore, Mr. Peterson advised that, even though an existing easement is located on the west side of his parcel, and for the sake of his neighbors, the neighborhood, and the lake, he and his wife were willing to release or surrender access on the east side versus using the other easement.  Mr. Peterson opined this should prove a cost savings for the neighbors and the city.  After all, Mr. Peterson noted the goal was to save the lake and neighborhood properties, and the erosion coming from the railroad tracks.

 

Mr. Peterson noted their property had already been surveyed several times, and tongue in cheek suggested his only suggestion is to name the road after him.

 

On behalf of the City and City Council, Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Peterson for this consideration, and noted it sounded like he and staff were in agreement on the east side of the property rather than using the existing easement on the west side.

 

With no one else to speak, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 7:59 p.m.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11346 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Owasso Private Drive Storm Water Improvements;" clarifying that, as requested by the property owners of 345 S. Owasso Blvd., access be on the east side of their parcel.

 

Councilmember McGehee, with concurrence by Mayor Roe, thanked residents and staff for initiating this project.

 

Mayor Roe reminded residents that the assessment hearing would be held next fall after actual costs were available upon completion of the project.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

d.            Consider Approval of Amended Agreement with Roseville Area Community Foundation Regarding Disbursement of Lawful Gambling Proceeds

City Manager Patrick Trudgeon introduced former Chair of the North Suburban Community Foundation, now known as the Roseville Area Community Foundation or RACF), Tammy Pust (Roseville resident at 813 Millwood Avenue).  Mr. Trudgeon noted the details of this foundation and work over the last few years were provided in the RCA.

 

Tammy Pust

Ms. Pust concurred with City Manager Trudgeon's observation that the first conversations about
this foundation and needed changes since its inception in 1991, had occurred in
2014.

 

Ms. Pust stated she was appearing before the City Council on behalf of the foundation, or RACF, and provided a background of what the foundation had been doing, opining the City Council and Roseville public hadn't heard enough from them over the
years.  Ms. Pust led from that background into the proposed ordinance changes,
and recognized other members of the foundation may be arriving during her
presentation in support of this request, including the current Chairperson. 

 

Ms. Pust provided an overview of the foundation and statutory provision for all municipalities, since the law was passed in 1990, at the cities' option to have
a fund for 10% of lawful charitable gambling proceeds within the community to
be given to other nonprofit entities in that community.  Ms. Pust noted the
City of Roseville had always delegated that provision to this foundation,
formerly the North Suburban Community Foundation, with the name just changed as
of June 2016 to the RACF and as filed with the Secretary of State.  Ms. Pust
provided the rationale for that name change, as outlined in the contract
between the city and foundation as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
requirements that any grantee of those funds do work benefiting the city. 
After all these years, Ms. Pust advised that the foundation had determined it
was best for the foundation's name to better reflect its purpose and history. 
Since grantees of these funds also serve the area school districts (Roseville
and Moundsview), Ms. Pust noted those districts were not specific to the Roseville
city limits, but didn't need to be excluded due to their geographical areas,
thus the name change to Roseville "Area".

 

Ms. Pust highlighted four specific main points for language changes in the MOU.  Ms. Pust noted the history of using a Donor Advisory Board (DAB) as a subcommittee since 1991, with one amendment before now, to hear applications to the foundation from nonprofits, and then making a recommendation to the full body.  While this process may have worked well for the last twenty years, and with tax code requirements during that time, it required two different community bodies to make decisions about who would be funded.  However, Ms. Pust noted over time, the federal tax code had gotten simpler, and no longer required a DAB.  Ms. Pust profusely thanked those members serving on the DAB, with some of the original members serving until their retirement over the last 2-3 years; and advised they had been given first right of refusal to be elected to serve on the RACF.

 

In reviewing the contract language, with a DAB no longer needed, and the referenced Roseville Chamber of Commerce no longer in existence, Ms. Pust noted the interest in updating the MOU (contract) accordingly and based on how nonprofit corporations run now compared to when the contract was originally drafted in 1991.  At that point, Ms. Pust noted it was then suggested those changes be followed through by the city and its ordinance language as well.

 

Regarding financial restrictions, Ms. Pust noted there were some areas with tighter governance now and some less so, but the contract always stated a certain amount for disbursement above and beyond the permanent endowment.  However, Ms. Pust noted some of that language was vague and the foundation struggled with their ability to give out 50%, but if investments were poor, that requirement didn't need to be followed.  Ms. Pust noted that language had now been
clarified with what the city's original intent had been, plus 75% of interest
earnings.  While the endowment fund may take a hit depending on interest
earnings, Ms. Pust opined that was fine, as through the generosity of the
community and great financial stewardship of the RACF, the endowment fund was
just under $1 million.  Ms. Pust noted the most important goal remained to get
the money out to other nonprofits in the community.

 

Ms. Pust noted that one item written to provide more flexibility was that the RACF could charge the city for its services.  While the contract always allowed for that, even though it was a more complex administration fee, Ms. Pust noted the contract now stated the RACF could charge no more than 3% for an administration fee on an annualize basis.  While the RACF could always charge up to that 3%, Ms. Pust noted the previous tiers had now been removed to simplify things.  Ms. Pust noted it was no longer 1991, and as with other organizations, the RACF needed to come into the age of electronic communication.  Ms. Pust reported that the foundation was just about ready to flip the switch on its new website allowing nonprofits to apply for funding online.  While that obviously cost more in administrative funds, Ms. Pust noted previous costs only involved annual audits and some very minimal administrative support; while this new era would include web hosting fees and related expenses.  While the RACF was always a great organization, Ms. Pust noted the public would now be able to see what was being funded, and remove its mark of being the "best kept secret in town," and be able to fund that technology to provide more transparency.

 

Ms. Pust reported that the last and, in her opinion, the best change was a contract requirement for a City Council standing agenda item for the RACF to report annually on its work over the year; and a list of those nonprofits seeking funds, and those receiving funding.

 

As stated earlier, Ms. Pust noted these contract changes were recommended for incorporation accordingly in the city's ordinance language included in
tonight's meeting materials.

 

In closing, Ms. Pust recognized the city for the number of organizations receiving funding over the years.  Ms. Pust noted the application cycles are quarterly, with clear grant guidelines followed; and applicants able to apply no more than once annually.  However, Ms. Pust advised those grant guidelines and the process were the next step for review and revision as well.  Ms. Pust provided a brief history of some of the nonprofit funding provided to-date, with the cap on those funds allowed since 1991 to allow no more than $2,500. While that was a lot of money in 1991, Ms. Pust noted it didn't allow for the same emphasis in
today's economy; and was a discussion item for the RACF going forward.  Ms.
Pust advised that the nonprofits receiving funding represented a wide range,
with some well-known and others not well-known.  Ms. Pust advised that the RACF
website would include pictures to showcase those organizations in the
community; and noted the RACF would be seeking permission from the city to link
their website to the city's site. 

 

In serving as a trustee for other funds, while this service is not the only thing the RACF does, Ms. Pust noted it was the biggest thing the foundation did.

 

Discussion

Specific to the two major ordinance revisions, Mayor Roe referenced Attachment C, (lines 20-22), addressing exceptions for disbursements for police, fire and other emergency or public safety-related services.   Mayor Roe noted the reason for adding that language was to mirror statutory language (Attachment A).  While this isn't done now, Mayor Roe noted this allowed flexibility if and when a
future City Council may choose to manage those types of fund disbursements
rather than having the foundation do so, since the city was responsible for
managing those services. 

 

Mayor Roe also noted the addition of language on the draft ordinance, (Attachment C, Section B, lines 33 - 36) addressing annual reporting.  Mayor Roe advised this paralleled language for the Roseville Visitor's Association (RVA), a similar
organization using funds collected through hotel and lodging taxes in Roseville
under statutory requirements.

 

Specific to Mayor Roe's comments, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the intent of language
referencing state statute and public safety-related services was that a sitting
City Council would annually disburse those funds rather than having the
foundation do so.

 

Mayor Roe advised that was not intended at this point with the foundation disbursing 100% of the funds for non-public-safety purposes; but as with statutory language, reserved that flexibility and right for a City Council to do so.

 

Ms. Pust noted that the foundation's current policy excluded disbursements for public safety
purposes, and also noted that the foundation makes disbursements on a quarterly
basis, so an annual determination on public safety disbursements from the City
could be disruptive to the foundation's operations.  Additionally, Ms. Pust
opined that the City ought to fund public safety operations from other tax
sources, rather than using lawful charitable gambling proceeds.

 

Councilmember Laliberte expressed her agreement, thus her question on how to address the practice.

 

Mayor Roe reiterated the language simply allowed for the possibility, but that it wasn't
mandatory and that the ordinance clearly stated the City's intent NOT to have
the foundation be involved in public safety related disbursements, reserving
that responsibility, if exercised per statute, to the City.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked the RACF and Ms. Pust and City Manager Trudgeon for working through those changes.  Since this was a shadow entity, Councilmember McGehee welcomed their plan to link their new website to the city's website.  Regarding
the composition of the board, Councilmember McGehee asked how members of the
community could find out if they were eligible to serve on the board and how
they would go about that process.  With the RACF's annual report to the City
Council and clearer website availability, as well as a clear electronic grant
application process, Councilmember McGehee opined there would probably be more
community interest in the RACF.

 

Specific to the Board of Directors for the RACF, Ms. Pust reported that, like any nonprofit, the foundation elected its board of directors.  In her conversations with Mayor Roe and City Manager Trudgeon, and recognizing the city frequently received more applications for its advisory boards than it had vacancies, Ms. Pust offered for the foundation to be a recipient of the names of those applicants.  However, Ms. Pust noted that not everyone would or could be elected to the board; and noted those serving took their service seriously and were constantly looking for new board members as attrition and other openings occurred.  For those citizens interested in the RACF, Ms. Pust encouraged them to get their names to City Manager Trudgeon to forward to the RACF.  Since the RACF just elected officers in June of 2016, Ms. Pust cautioned there probably wouldn't be
much movement on the board until June of 2017 unless current members stepped
down.

 

Mayor Roe concurred, and again likened the RACF to the RVA as an independent entity with its own board of directors; and with the opportunity for an annual report to the City Council and public, suggested that would be a good time to make a pitch for the board.

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte regarding a City Council liaison to the RACF similar to that of the RVA, Mayor Roe clarified that with his service on the RVA Board of Directors that was totally happenstance, and not official in his capacity on the City Council.

 

Ms. Pust noted that City Manager Trudgeon had served on the DAB, and welcomed any City Council or a designee to attend their meetings.  Since the RACF was a nonprofit, and not required to meet under open meeting law requirements, Ms. Pust advised that it still did so since the foundation discussed community events and activities.

 

Since a number of great people were already involved in the community, Councilmember Laliberte asked if there was any potential for conflicts of interest if they were part of the RACF but also applying for grant funds.

 

Ms. Pust advised that a conflict of interest policy was in place for the RACF and all meeting minutes duly recorded.

 

Councilmember Etten thanked Ms. Pust, and expressed appreciation for the annual report going forward, as well as the online application format and public awareness of the process, noting the benefit for the community.  Specific with the public safety-related service language, Councilmember Etten admitted he too was questioning the need for potential city control over that, but noted he wasn't
sure how strongly he felt about it. 

 

On a personal note, Councilmember Etten clarified with Ms. Pust that both the Mounds view and Roseville school districts were included for future funding possibilities.

 

Ms. Pust announced that the RACF's new website URL was:  rosevilleareacommunityfoundation.org;
and that it should be live soon as things transitioned from her past to the new
leadership.

 

Mayor Roe further clarified the intent of the proposed language allowing the city to make disbursements for emergency services, as currently allowed in state statute, and the ordinance language simply reflecting and acknowledging that ability.  However, Mayor Roe noted that the city wasn't going to do anything with those
disbursements immediately or that it was seeking to develop a procedure to do
so, but only that the ability was there.  While he appreciated the concerns
expressed by his colleagues, Mayor Roe agreed with Ms. Pust that the city was
in a better position to fund police, fire and public safety services through
other revenue sources rather than through lawful charitable gambling proceeds.

 

Willmus moved, seconded by unanimous acclimation of the City Council, approval of the Second Amended Agreement related to the Roseville Community Fund (Attachment B) under the Roseville Area Community Foundation regarding distribution of lawful gambling proceeds

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1506 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Creating Title 3, Chapter 304, An Ordinance Relating to the Disbursement of Lawful Gambling Proceeds;" amended to reflect correction of a typographical error in line 13 leaving a space after "Chapter 304."

 

                        Roll Call        

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

Nays: None.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1506 (Attachment D) entitled, "Official Summary of Ordinance No. 1506, An Ordinance Relating to the City of Roseville Advisory Commissions;" amended to correct the title as follows: "An Ordinance Creating Title 3, Chapter 304, An Ordinance Relating to the Disbursement of Lawful Gambling Proceeds."

 

                        Roll Call (Super Majority Required)

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

Nays: None.

 

On behalf of the public and City Council, Mayor Roe stated interest in hearing the first annual report of the RACF.

 

For those residents interested in serving on a board such as the RACF, Mayor Roe also noted the Roseville Historical Society as another area of service.

 

Ms. Pust concurred with Mayor Roe.

 

Councilmember Laliberte thanked Ms. Pust for her long-term efforts in working on this update.

 

13.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Discuss recommendations Regarding Neighborhood Associations from the Community Engagement Commission

City Manager Patrick Trudgeon referenced the detail provided in the RCA as recommended by the Community Engagement Commission (CEC).  Mr. Trudgeon referenced Attachment B, outlining the CEC's report and specific recommendations regarding
Neighborhood Associations (NA).  Mr. Trudgeon reviewed each section, starting
with line 112 of Attachment B, seeking City Council feedback.

 

Criteria for "Affiliated" Neighborhood Associations (page 3)

As noted by Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that no association had come forward to-date asking for this "affiliation" status; and the criteria provided were simply modeled from other communities with NAs.

 

When important issues came up in neighborhoods, Councilmember McGehee opined they rallied quickly and had the ability to self-organize to present their views to the City Council, often choosing their own spokesperson.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the city should not be involved in this matter, and favored NAs being able to self-organize without interference and with no formal process requiring bylaws and coming before the City Council for approval.  Councilmember McGehee further opined this was intrusive and unnecessary; nor was it necessary for the city to define their boundaries and dispute them if and when someone may feel left out.  With existing block captains, NextDoor.com and other ways for a community to self-organize around city issues, Councilmember McGehee pointed out this had not arisen from the community wishing for such an idea.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was not interested in pursuing this.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he didn't see anything in this criteria that precluded
neighborhoods from serving as NAs independent of this proposed process.

 

Councilmember McGehee then questioned the need to have it in place.

 

Mayor Roe noted this discussion was involving a portion of the document beyond that yet presented by City Manager Trudgeon.  Mayor Roe clarified that if a NA chose to "affiliate" with the city, there were certain things the city would provide to the group in exchange for that affiliation.  Mayor Roe agreed with Councilmember McGehee's concerns with boundaries, opining those should be
self-determined, and further stated he had no problem with overlapping boundaries
of groups seeking further identify with a smaller area than the broader NA. 
However, Mayor Roe stated the city should not make that decision, and also
expressed his concern in the city approving bylaws, suggesting there simply be
a checklist for the NA to complete.  Mayor Roe stated he did think it was good
to require a NA to have bylaws to function well and avoid chaos.

 

Mayor Roe stated he did have a problem referring to NAs as "affiliated" and suggested it made more sense to call them "registered" to avoid any perception they were city-driven.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe, opining the city shouldn't get
involved approving bylaws, but simply provided samples and let those
organizations work for their efforts without city approval.  As an example,
Councilmember Etten noted his involvement in the larger Lake McCarron's
Neighborhood Association, as well as in a smaller group functioning within that
larger NA, both serving different purposes to build community.  Councilmember Etten
stated finding ways to assist neighbors in joining together was a good thing
and benefited not only neighbors and the neighborhood, but the city as a whole,
especially in more positive ways going forward versus being only a reactionary
group.  Councilmember Etten noted this provided neighbors to get to know about
their neighborhood and city and make them more aware and involved.  Councilmember
Etten noted the block captain idea came from a public comment made in April
when this was discussed; and suggested the city go to those contacts first to
determine if there was interest in the registration process, and if so use that
network as the starting point.

 

For someone coming to register with the city as a NA, Councilmember McGehee questioned how the city proved they represented those people.

 

Mayor Roe responded that would be evidenced as per the criteria outlined by City Manager Trudgeon.  As with anything, Mayor Roe noted the city was depending on people being honest and straightforward, thus the criteria proposed.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he had no issue whether a NA was referred to as "affiliated" or "registered." Regarding boundaries, Councilmember Willmus asked Mayor Roe if he saw any need for oversight or how to provide a realistic guideline to avoid a boundary that may encompass the entire city or a good portion of it, or even possibly extend beyond the city.

 

Mayor Roe recognized it may involve some guidelines, but he didn't think it necessarily
should be based on so many members per acre, and acknowledge that people may
identify in different ways and accept that.  Mayor Roe suggested including
instructive language discouraging conflicts related to boundaries, but otherwise
didn't see any issues.

 

Regarding the statement that this NA idea had not been brought forward by the public, Mayor Roe clarified that it definitely had been, and if not from the CEC, it had been members of the public that got them thinking about it; and noted formation of several other NAs over the last few years.

 

City Manager Trudgeon agreed with Mayor Roe, that prior to the creation of the CEC, the Civic Engagement Task Force provided a recommendation to foster NAs and brought that forward to the City Council, and subsequently turned it over to the CEC with the goal of fostering more civic and community engagement.  Mr. Trudgeon noted this phase of the process was simply fleshing out the details.

 

Specific to boundaries, City Manager Trudgeon agreed it was a challenging issue, and noted the City Council's discussion tonight mimicked those held by the CEC and its
subcommittee.  Referencing the City of St. Louis Park's model with the city
pre-determining boundaries by map divisions, Mr. Trudgeon noted that had become
clear very quickly that it was not something the city was interested in doing. 
Mr. Trudgeon suggested allowing those boundaries to be self-determined by the
NA, and spoke in support of a soft approval versus hard approval of their bylaws. 
While the City Council may consider those boundaries, if requested to do so,
Mr. Trudgeon those boundaries may fall naturally.  With the bylaws, Mr.
Trudgeon reported that the CEC felt it was important to have things set up
properly for the NA to function and be successful, with the intent for rules of
governance and the strong feeling that an annual meeting was required and open
to the public.  While this language in Attachment B may be too harsh, Mr.
Trudgeon referenced and suggested the St. Louis Park "tool kit" and sample
bylaws and checklist for minimum criteria as a best practice to follow and the
minimum submission to the city to be "registered."

 

Mayor Roe agreed with that point, at a minimum to provide bylaws for a NA, but not for City Council approval, and only as an administrative function for staff to accept that registration and provide that registration on the city's website. 
Mayor Roe opined that City Council Approval represented a whole level of
politics, especially for a particular issue that may come before the City
Council, and stated his lack of interest in setting up such potential conflicts.

 

Councilmember Willmus agreed with City Manager Trudgeon and Mayor Roe.

 

Councilmember McGehee reiterated that she saw no reason for bylaws or to be "registered," since at this point anyone could access an agenda or notice and represented no specific public benefit for someone from city staff to talk to a NA, since that option already existed.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated she preferred "registered" versus "affiliated" to serve as a way of recognizing the NA and to receive an exchange of services versus those NAs organically existing.  Councilmember Laliberte also stated boundaries were not for the city to dictate, and people may want to participate in multiple areas or interest groups.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Councilmember Etten that others could be blurred.  Councilmember Laliberte stated she loved the idea that NAs develop for positive reasons and not just because they're
fighting about an issue, a development, or the city to be heard.  Councilmember
Laliberte opined that the goal in acknowledging a NA similarly was for the good
of the community.

 

Neighborhood Association Expectations of the City (page 4-5)

Councilmember McGehee referenced the last bullet point (lines 186 - 189) and meeting with the City Manager annually.  Again, Councilmember McGehee noted these items are readily available to the community or any group or neighborhood asking.  From this language, Councilmember McGehee opined that the perception is that if you or your small group isn't "registered," you are unable to partake of those
activities.  Councilmember McGehee opined that any neighborhood group should be
able to use City meeting facilities at no cost, whether "affiliated" or not,
with no special break just because you're "registered."  Councilmember McGehee
stated she didn't see any check and balance in handing out these benefits; and
would like to see evidence of a group and their acting as one versus someone
stating they controlled a certain number of blocks in an area.  While that may
not happen often, Councilmember McGehee opined it could and referenced several
cases in which she could see that happening.  If a group wants to organize and
the person in charge receives extra notification, Councilmember McGehee opined
she had a hard time saying why this should be so different.  Regarding the St.
Louis Park model, Councilmember McGehee stated St. Louis Park is not only a different
and much larger community with a larger staff than Roseville, but also operates
under a different system.  Councilmember McGehee reiterated her statement that
she didn't think this proposed NA process fit; and referred to recent community
surveys indicating resident's attachments to their neighborhoods and providing
sufficient community input without this type of structure in place.

Councilmember Willmus responded that this structure didn't preclude them from
what Councilmember McGehee was suggesting they already do, but simply provided
a mechanism for more opportunity and for further connection with the city.  Councilmember
Willmus stated his only question was pertaining to the bullet points on lines
181 and 184, noting the comments of Councilmember McGehee on notification, and
something available for anyone checking the box.  Councilmember Willmus stated
he had some questions as to whether or not that was absolutely necessary.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated this provided a nice list of things that "could be" provided to a NA, but in some ways she found it too broad and long with the potential to tie up a staff person charged with doing this.  Councilmember Laliberte noted just tracking what grants were available and their specific purpose and parameters was a huge task for a staff already overwhelmed.  Councilmember Laliberte also expressed concern with including NA information in the city newsletter, opining that may prove difficult with the current every other month schedule that made it hard to get all of the city's existing timely information out to the public
that the city was obligated to provide.  Regarding mailing, if the mailing was
intended as a one-time, NA set up notice, Councilmember Laliberte stated her
agreement, but not as an annual meeting notice.  However, Councilmember Laliberte
noted this at some point brought up the issue of boundaries, or where that
mailing went and who received the notice.

 

Councilmember Etten agreed with some of Councilmember Laliberte's points, noting his concern
with being considerate of staff time in keeping up-to-date with grants. 
Councilmember Etten noted his interest in whether all NAs could become a collaborative
group, not all inclusive, but in ways the NAs could work together for positive
interaction with reasonable expectations.   While the mailing may potentially
be a good thing, Councilmember Etten noted potential funding sources for those
mailings, whether a one-time starter mailing or other option, noting boundaries
drove that cost.  Instead, Councilmember Etten suggested a cost-participation
cap for each NA that the city could support, but providing a specific source of
and regulation of those funds.  Regarding notifying a NA of things happening,
Councilmember Etten stated his interest in continuing to inform that, and while
things may not initially provide a perfect system, formalization for block
captains was his preference with the goal to get more information out to neighborhoods
and then ask those block captains to disseminate it to their community
neighborhood.  Councilmember Etten noted this provided another step and intentional
effort for the city to reach and communicate with more people.

 

Mayor Roe stated he didn't have much problem with lines 181 - 185 and agreed with staff
not spending too much time on those steps.  Mayor Roe stated his interest in
the collaborative feedback among NA's on grants that didn't require city
research; and agreed with the lack of room available in the city's newsletter
for NA news as well as the additional staff time that would require.  Mayor Roe
agreed with the seed money concept for NA mailing leaving it up to them how they
used it.  Related to the notification process, similar to that used for land
use issues, Mayor Roe noted this brought up the question of who provided the
mailing list, suggesting that may be a service the city could provide, to
determine what made the most sense versus an unlimited mailing.  Mayor Roe
agreed with the one-time only NA creation mailing.

 

Additional discussion and clarification included the initial mailing would be for a newly-forming NA to solicit for their membership in establishing as a group; clarification of the results of a mailing and what constitutes a NA by reporting the number to the city, without identifying members, just a head count; and preference for NAs to maintain communication with the city with updated meeting minutes or notes and a current tally of their membership on an annual basis.

 

Councilmember Laliberte noted her struggle in how to define members of a NA; while applauding NAs that strengthened their membership among themselves and funded their activities, opining that was the best case scenario from her perspective.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte, noting an example with the fence issue earlier this year, with a cohesive group coming together around a project, and continuing to get together around other projects and positive things and without an established boundary.  Councilmember McGehee opined that certain personalities could make this idea problematic, and further opined how much nicer it was to have neighbors arrive spontaneously, and receive any additional information they requested from the city without the more formal aspects being suggested. 

 

Councilmember Etten clarified that he didn't have a perception that city recognition would give a group
some special powers; and suggested Councilmember McGehee was over-representing
who NAs represented.  Councilmember Etten further clarified that the goal was
not to empower anyone, but to bring people together to communicate and provide
a vehicle for them to do so, such as a NA.  Councilmember Etten noted this was
not guaranteeing people extra control over the city or their neighbors.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the Night to Unite event, block captains, and the NextDoor.com program provided significant and sufficient outreach.

 

City Manager Trudgeon noted this is all predicated on fostering NAs so they could foster community and civic engagement.  Mr. Trudgeon noted there was a lot of information in this report, and clarified that there was no suggestion that everything be implemented all at once.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested starting with basic resources and a tool kit for NA self-organization and offering the support available to them from the city; and then to wait and see before implementing anything further.  Mr. Trudgeon expressed his appreciation of the City Council's
recognition of the staff time commitment, and especially if following this
route, further noted his appreciation of a phased approach to not overburden
staff.  If the City Council is interested in proceeding, Mr. Trudgeon opined
there were good nuggets provided in the report and models with which to move
forward.

 

Benefits and Purposes of NAs (Attachment B, page 2)

Mayor Roe reviewed the intent of this effort.

 

Public Comment

Mayor Roe noted it would be helpful for the City Council if existing NA representatives could provide input as to the registration process and their experience in tracking membership.

 

Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street

Ms. McCormick referenced how this NA process had historically come to be, based on her recollection and personal service on the task force and its report that served as a predecessor to the current CEC.    With that original intent to create more cohesive neighborhoods that evolved into the NA concept, Ms. McCormick opined that idea met with some resistance at the CEC level.  As to whether or not the idea was brought forward by members of the public, Ms. McCormick questioned that, noting she initially brought forward but then reversed her position; and stated she knew of no one else coming forward to request this.

 

Ms. McCormick opined this was premature, and to City Manager Trudgeon's point, it provided
good information and things to initiate, there was no need for this formal of a
process, but simply to strengthen the block program.  Ms. McCormick referenced
her starting of a NA several years ago and stated if she had more information
at that time, would have used a different process to do so.  Ms. McCormick
referenced the work being done by the Police Department's Community Relations
Coordinator Corey Yunke with block clubs.  Ms. McCormick questioned for what
purpose and what community engagement this effort was put forth.  Specific to
her NA, Ms. McCormick reported there were initially 40-60 residents at meetings
and subsequently participating, but when they felt like they weren't being
heard, it was difficult to maintain membership and keep good faith, even if and
when decisions didn't have the preferred result of those participants.

 

Ms. McCormick questioned the goal, and suggested if the city pursued it there may not be the desired results that they had achieved and improved upon, including potential legal liabilities if they were encouraging incorporating entities and a level of involvement for the City Council in NA management.  Under this proposal, Ms. McCormick stated she would not seek recognition as a NA as she was philosophically opposed to the requirements.  Ms. McCormick opined when she was working directly with former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta, she had contributed to the community, and by implementing this process, the city would be taking a step backwards.  For members of the community to be allowed to meet in public spaces, Ms. McCormick asked if they needed to be recognized as a NA participant to do so.   If so, Ms. McCormick opined that was a step backward.

 

Ms. McCormick referenced her research of the "Speak Up! Roseville" website, and past meeting videos, with most public comment coming from those attending tonight's meeting
for this topic, without much other feedback received.  Ms. McCormick noted this
had yet to be vetted by the community; and stated that she found it fairly
disrespectful that the fact there are three NAs in Roseville, one formally
incorporated and two informally meeting, and only one acknowledged at a public
meeting.  As the founder of one of those informal NAs, and with the Chair of
the formally incorporated meeting also present in tonight's audience, Ms.
McCormick stated both had come forward to say this is premature, not collaborative,
and not the right thing to do at this time based on their experience.

 

While there may be more conversation on this, Ms. McCormick asked that people be brought to the table to comment.

 

Sherry Sanders, Chair of Lake McCarron's NA, Resident of S McCarron's Blvd.

As a member of the Civic Engagement Task Force from its inception to its end, and after their report was submitted on which she had worked, as well as serving on the CEC, and as an involved community member, Ms. Sanders stated her interest in responding to this issue.

 

Ms. Sanders agreed with the comments of Mayor Roe and the city not defining boundaries, noting she had opposed that at the CEC level, and remained against that; and also opined the city should have nothing to do with NA bylaws.

 

Regarding concerns expressed by Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Sanders opined there was no need for that concern, as the Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association continued to persist and was basically ignored by many City Councilmembers over the years.  Ms. Sanders noted their NA was 3,000 people strong, and included residents and businesses in their area - anyone owning property, none of whom had asked for this.

 

Ms. Sanders stated community and civic engagement was hard and messy, and noted you could always rally people temporarily around a common enemy, but stated that wasn't
how she wanted to perceive things, but preferred something build on a positive
aspect.  Ms. Sanders noted her NA met monthly, had formal bylaws, regular
meetings and membership dues.

 

Regarding the points outlined in the report, Ms. Sanders questioned why the City Council would even consider accepting it, other than simply receiving the report and reviewing it.  Ms. Sanders asked that they not consider action now, opining the city already had too much going on already and suggested reacting to the report at a later date, and including public participation in that discussion.  Of those working on the Task Force, Ms. Sanders noted after many hours sacrificed to consider NAs, none of them supported this or were asking for it to become cit policy.  While the report may have some good points, Ms. Sanders opined they were not necessary, even though she wrote some of them.

 

Ms. Sanders stated she had a problem with people without experience encouraging the City Council to make policy.

 

Regarding membership and vetting, Ms. Sanders addressed one group of residents seeking to be grandfathered in without any bylaws and holding no meetings to-date.  Ms. Sanders asked that the City Council take their time with vetting, and determine whether or not representation was in the actual area, opining otherwise messy things could happen down the road, when things should be done prudently and done right.

 

Ms. Sanders noted there were advantages for the city to help NAs advertise and with possible funding, but noted her NA did that on its own anyway, and referenced the Rice Street Gardens and Community Conversations as two examples of their efforts.  Ms. Sanders noted their NA and those efforts were more resident-led initiatives and they could even do more. 

 

Ms. Sanders offered her availability in the future to assist the City Council and bring in those with experience in creating and running real associations - block clubs that were a building block for associations form an organic foundation.

 

Ms. Sanders asked that the City Council wait until enough people want this and then do it right.

 

Peggy Verkuilen, 1123 Sextant Avenue W

Ms. Verkuilen expressed concern in attempting to draw boundaries, recommending if doing so, their borders needed to touch.  While recognizing the need for rules of order for meetings, Ms. Verkuilen noted the difficulty with bylaws.  Ms. Verkuilen noted the whole object was to get information out, and opined that was what should be included, and with the right person heading up the job it could be done. 

 

Ms. Verkuilen noted her lack of support with mailings, opining the best thing was person to person contact and handing things to neighbors.  With that personal contact and interest expressed, Ms. Verkuilen noted it allowed for ways to provide personal information and a contact point through emails of door to door notice versus the cost of mailings.

 

Rick Sanders, S McCarron's Blvd., Lake McCarron's NA Co-Chair

Mr. Sanders asked that the City Council put this on the back burner, and opined the only benefit was funding for a one-time mailing list with everything else already available.  If someone wants to start a NA, while it may be beneficial for them to receive this information, Ms. Sanders noted most if not all of it was available on line.

 

 To have the municipal government involved in telling a NA how to run their organization, which he didn't think was their intent, Mr. Sanders questioned the rationale
involved, and what potential harm could occur down the road. 

 

Mr. Sanders encouraged the City Council to take it slow and give out information on what it would and could do, but avoid setting up boundaries, allowing block captains their role in providing fluent communication.  Mr. Sanders opined that the goal was to see people come together and if they saw the city becoming too involved, they would back off.  Mr. Sanders opined that any information residents sought of the city was readily available from the city website.

 

Mr. Sanders questioned what this whole movement was about; and as a member of an existing NA, opined he wasn't interested in what was being offered.

 

Additional City Council Discussion

Mayor Roe clarified his point in establishing NAs was voluntary for those wishing to do so, but further clarified that the city was in no way mandating it, and expressed concern that was the perception of this report and discussion.  Mayor Roe categorically stated that was not what was being talked about by the City Council; and clarified the intent of the CEC was to have NAs register with the city and receive benefit from those collective efforts.  Mayor Roe noted that ultimately the City Council would need to decide how to proceed; and determine whether there were benefits to registering as well as considering other aspects.  Mayor Roe suggested that everyone leave this conversation acknowledging that there was nothing wrong with neighborhoods connecting with each other and forming an association; and also confirmed that there was no need for them to talk to the city to proceed, with no one suggesting that as a requirement.  On the flip side, Mayor Roe noted the benefit of the process could be seen as the ability to connect with local government and be a part of that larger process.  Mayor Roe stated any way to facilitate that participation was his objective with this process; and opined the rest was for discussion and consideration by the City Council.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted that, as he stated back in April of this year, his position had not changed.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he saw nothing in this report that impedes any existing NA continuing to function as it had been; and only provided an alternative for people choosing to go this route.  Councilmember Willmus reiterated that it in no way should diminish residents or those existing NAs in any way.  Councilmember Willmus opined, if things go forward, further review and consideration was needed; noting the report was nowhere near the point to move forward with it.

 

Out of respect to those with experience, Councilmember McGehee noted their advice was to wait; and until or if people come forward seeking assistance with forming a NA, the City Council and community needed to know that if they had something to discuss as a group, they were welcome to use public space to do so, as well as receiving City Council agendas as requested.    Further Councilmember McGehee noted residents were free to contact their city leaders at any time about what they needed to form a collective voice.  However, until she felt the need for this in the community or for the City Council or city staff to spend more time on this, Councilmember McGehee opined this was not in the city's best interest.

 

Councilmember Etten stated his agreement in general with Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus, noting this doesn't force anything, nor should it insult any existing NAs. 
Councilmember Etten stated he'd be very concerned if this intended to take away
anything from groups not seeking registration, but opined he didn't think it
did so.  Councilmember Etten further opined that the vast majority of the
points were intended for those seeking to do more in the community and to do good;
and questioned why the city wouldn't want to encourage more people to make this
happen and provide them with the tools and support they may need, but not
forcing anything.  Councilmember Etten stated this supported positive connections
in the community, and opined there was a role for the city without formally
forcing boundaries.  While there were some things that needed working through,
Councilmember Etten opined the city could help those not knowing how to develop
neighborhood connections, the overall purpose of the city and for the good of
the broader community.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated this was nothing she was ready to do now she could support the baby steps approach.  Councilmember Laliberte further stated she didn't want to
create anything precluding an organization that wanted to be as loose or formal
as they chose.  However, the easy creation of a tool kit to assist them,
similar to that created for neighborhoods interested in pursuing organized
trash collection, Councilmember Laliberte opined was feasible, offering sample
outreach options and bylaw models for them.  Councilmember Laliberte opined it
shouldn't take much more effort from the city than that.  Councilmember
Laliberte noted comments she'd received over the last few months that residents
were not interested in paying for mailings for other residents.  However, even
though this already happens, Councilmember Laliberte noted the perception was
out there.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that one remaining question was
whether those NAs not "registered" had the same recognition from the city as
those who are.  Councilmember Laliberte noted there were lots of things to work
through if the city provided any other benefits.  However, if the intent was to
help and encourage residents to build a more cohesive neighborhood in a formal
or informal way, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was all for that, even
though that was only one tiny part of this report.

 

Mayor Roe stated his tendency to agree with taking the first baby step of acknowledging the city felt there was a benefit in people forming NAs and a willingness to prove basic tools as resources.  While he found this "tool kit" a good idea, Mayor Roe stated he wasn't supportive of tracking and providing grant information. 
Mayor Roe clarified that he wasn't suggesting authorizing the tool kit tonight,
but stated that may be the first step in the future. Mayor Roe stated he didn't
want to lose sight of this report and some of its suggestions; all toward the
effort of encouraging neighborhoods to work together.  Mayor Roe stated his
take away from tonight's discussion was that there remained a lot of questions
yet before moving forward with any steps.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed that she wasn't ready to proceed even if the tool kit was very
simple like that put together for organized trash hauling.  However,
Councilmember McGehee expressed her lack of understanding of the City Council's
motivation in trying to make neighborhoods into NAs.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that this was not what he said; and restated his comment that he felt it was important for the city to acknowledge the benefit of associations, not disadvantages, by making positive communication efforts through that acknowledgement rather than the status quo which in effect served to discourage it.

 

14.        City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Trudgeon provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.

 

15.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Mayor Roe requested meeting minutes of the June 21, 2016 Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA) meeting be reviewed for approval at the next scheduled City Council meeting.  Unless there was a reason not to do so offered by the REDA's legal
counsel, Mayor Roe suggested future REDA meeting minutes be approved by the
City Council as well, rather than waiting for the next REDA meeting to allow
posting them on the city's website for public information without further
delay.

 

City Manager Trudgeon reported that staff had intended to distribute them as part of the upcoming August 29, 2016 REDA meeting; but would consult on process protocol for future reference.

 

16.        Adjourn Meeting

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:43 p.m.

           

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.