City
Council Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2016
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: McGehee,
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten and Roe. Acting City Manager Chris Miller and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
Mayor Roe
announced that, due a family scheduled activity, Councilmember Willmus would
not be not available for tonight's meeting.
Mayor Roe recognized
Finance Director Chris Miller who was serving as Acting City Manager for City
Manager Patrick Trudgeon, out-of-town at a conference.
2. Pledge of
Allegiance
3. Approve Agenda
Mayor Roe
referenced a revised meeting agenda, provided as a bench handout and as public
copies at the back of the room.
Acting City
Manager Miller requested removal of Item 8.h from the Consent Agenda for
separate consideration, with a grant agreement and revised draft resolution
available as bench handouts.
Councilmember McGehee
requested removal of Item 8.e from the Consent Agenda for separate
consideration.
Laliberte moved,
Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: McGehee,
Laliberte, Etten and Roe
Nays: None.
Finance Commission Interviews (1 Vacancy)
At approximately 6:05 p.m., Councilmembers
interviewed two candidates for a vacancy on the Finance Commission; with
appointments scheduled at the October 10, 2016 City Council meeting.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:24 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:30 p.m.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Ann Olsen, Osceola
Avenue, St. Paul
Ms. Olsen
referred to the City Council's discussion at their last meeting regarding a potential
pet store ordinance prohibiting the sale of dogs, cats or other animals. As
the Executive Director of the Association for Animal Rights, Ms. Olsen
encouraged the city to take advantage of their organization as a resource
moving forward. Ms. Olsen noted their organization had been instrumental in
recent breeder regulation legislation, and had extensive research materials and
considerable data available on pet stores, including the Roseville store
prompting this discussion.
Mayor Roe
thanked Ms. Olsen for her offer, and contact information was provided to Acting
City Manager Miller.
5. Council
and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe
announced upcoming events, including the Fire Department Auxiliary Booya, Fire
Department Open House and Fire Prevention Week activities; and invited
Roseville residents to attend an upcoming Imagine Roseville discussion about
community policing, race and changing demographics in the community.
Councilmembers Etten
and Laliberte announced the upcoming Tapped & Uncorked Roseville
Fundraiser, a ticketed event at the OVAL, with numerous breweries, wineries,
food trucks, and local restaurants confirmed for participation.
Councilmember
Laliberte announced the second of three educational series at the Ramsey County
Library - Roseville Branch, sponsored by the Roseville Community Health
Awareness Team (CHAT).
Mayor Roe
announced the upcoming annual Taste of Northeast Event by the Northeast Youth
and Family Services (NYFS) serving families in its sixteen city member area;
with this event providing a sampling of food and beverage vendors in the
northeast metropolitan area; and this year held at the Vadnais City Commons in
Vadnais Heights, MN.
6. Recognitions,
Donations and Communications
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 September 12, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the September 12, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 14, Line 43 (McGehee
Typographical correction: Change "form" to "from"
Roll Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe
Nays:
None.
b.
Approve September 19, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the September 19, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as
amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 26 (Roe)
Correct to read: "will [otherwise] be taken as a single motion."
·
Page 10, Line 3 (McGehee)
Typographical correction: Change "due" to "problem"
Roll Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe
Nays:
None.
c.
Approve September 19, 2016 Roseville Economic Development
Authority (REDA) Meeting Minutes
Mayor Roe
referenced the bench handout providing revised REDA meeting minutes correcting
the REDA Attorney's identify.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the September 19, 2016 REDA Meeting Minutes as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Title Line 4 (Etten)
Typographical Correction: Change time from "4:00 p.m." to "8:10 p.m."
Roll Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
8.
Approve Consent Agenda
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Acting City Manager Miller briefly reviewed those items being
considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for
Council Action (RCA) dated August 22, 2016 and related attachments.
a.
Approve Payments
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
detailed.
|
ACH Payments
|
$1,489,212.14
|
|
82961 - 83183
|
1,777,419.99
|
|
TOTAL
|
$3,266,632.13
|
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
b.
Approve Business and Other Licenses
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, approval of new 2016-2017 Massage Therapist Licenses as detailed,
dependent on completion of successful background checks.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
c.
Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus
Items
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for
services as noted in the RCA dated September 26, 2016, and Attachment A entitled,
"2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary," updated August 31, 2016.
Councilmember
McGehee questioned if this software license wasn't an excessive amount for an
annual fee.
Acting City
Manager Miller responded that the annual fee was based on volume, and noted
that over the last two years, the city had averaged 5,000 applications coming
through this software system.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
d.
Approve Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
Municipal Inflow and Infiltration Grant Agreement
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11364 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Approval of Construction Cooperation Agreement with the Metropolitan
Council;" for rehabilitation and restoration work within the City of Roseville
as part of the MCES sanitary sewer and treatment plants and pipe system.
Councilmember
Laliberte asked about the timing and budget for this expenditure.
Assistant
Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer responded that the city undertook an
annual sanitary sewer lining project, and advised that funds would be shifted
from city to Metropolitan Council lining projects as applicable.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the sites being addressed by the
Metropolitan Council had been included in the city's priority list.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
f.
Intergovernmental Agreement between Rice Creek Watershed District
(RCWD) and the City of Roseville for the Oasis Pond Iron Enhanced Sand
Filtration Basin
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement (Attachment
A) between the City of Roseville and Rice Creek Watershed District for the
iron-enhances sand filter basin project adjacent to Oasis Pond, part of Ramsey
County Ditch 4 draining into Little Lake Johanna.
Regarding sand
infiltration improvements for Oasis Pond, Councilmember McGehee pointed out
that they will also serve to improve water quality in Little Lake Johanna, a
state identified impaired body of water, and further address significant
downstream issues for both Little and Big Johanna.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
g.
Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Apply for a SCORE Funding
Grant
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11363 (Attachment A)
entitled, "Resolution Requesting 2017 SCORE Funding Grant for use in Roseville's
Residential recycling Program; authorizing submission of a grant application to
Ramsey County for grant funds in the amount of $84,315.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
i.
Approve a Cost Share Agreement between the City of Roseville and
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for the South Lake Owasso Drainage
Improvement Project
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded,, approval of an Incentive program Agreement
(Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District for the South Lake Owasso Drainage Improvement Project;
authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
j.
Authorize Entering into Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Agreement for 1716 Marion Street
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of an Agreement (Attachment C) for CDBG
Program grant funds between the City of Roseville and the Ramsey County Housing
and Redevelopment Authority for acquisition of the property at 1716 Marion
Street for development as a Roseville City Park;
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
9. Consider Items
Removed from Consent
e.
Set Public Hearing for Public Input on a Portable Recording
System, a/k/a Body Worn Cameras, scheduled for October 24, 2016
At
the request of Mayor Roe, Acting City Manager Miller briefly reviewed this item
as detailed in the RCA dated August 22, 2016 and related attachments. Mr.
Miller referenced the Bench Handout related to this item: Senate File No. 498
(revised Attachment A) highlighting language on page 8 that had originally been
inadvertently omitted.
Councilmember
McGehee stated she had read the senate materials, and opined this was an
expensive proposition for the city to undertake resulting in a great deal of
additional data to keep track of, with complex private and public data requirements
to be considered, including important issues about what can or cannot be redacted.
Councilmember McGehee opined this would involve a huge expenditure of manpower,
and significant fees for errors if the city failed in its endeavors.
Councilmember McGehee urged her colleagues to look carefully at the senate
document and think about those impacts to the city and actual expenses required
to properly implement this program.
Mayor
Roe clarified that tonight's action was to schedule the hearing; with the next
step being receipt of public input and City Council deliberation in considering
the policy.
Councilmember
Laliberte noted the donation of body cameras to the city's Police Department;
and asked that the public hearing would include a report from the Police Chief
on how the cameras were currently being used in their trial use.
Acting
City Manager Miller advised he would pass that information request on to the
Police Department as they prepare for the October 24, 2016 meeting; including
how many cameras were available, how they were being used now and their
intended use going forward.
Councilmember
McGehee questioned the effective date of legislation and impacts to past,
current and future use; and reiterated her request that substantial attention
be paid moving forward. While not saying their use wasn't important, Councilmember
McGehee suggested the City's Finance Commission provide their assessment and
research on what their use could entail related to manpower and other citywide
ramifications.
Mayor
Roe questioned if such a research project was suited to the charge for the Finance
Commission; and suggested staff research may be the starting point.
Councilmember
Laliberte reported that a recent meeting of the Metro Cities Board addressed
data requests that were becoming cumbersome for many cities. Councilmember
Laliberte further reported that over the next year, Metro Cities intended to
hold a forum, similar to the housing forum held earlier this year, to discuss
the amount of staff time and costs expended by municipalities for this type of
effort.
Mayor
Roe referenced the legislation and the date of adoption by municipalities
compared to the effective date of the legislation.
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded, scheduling a public hearing for October 24, 2016 to
hear public comment on a draft policy to facilitate implementation of a
portable recording system (PRS), a/k/a body worn cameras for police officers, intended
for implementation in early 2017.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
h.
Approve Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Inflow
and Infiltration Grant Agreement
At
the request of Mayor Roe, Acting City Manager Miller briefly reviewed this item
as detailed in the RCA dated August 22, 2016 and related attachments. Mr.
Miller referenced two missing items in the packet materials, provided as Bench
Handouts. Mr. Miller advised that, after further consideration when tonight's
meeting materials were being processed and reviewed, staff requested that the
Metropolitan Council provide a copy of the grant agreement (Attachment to 8.h)
for the Inflow/Infiltration (I & I) Grant Program, allowing the City
Attorney's review between now and yearend. Upon review of that agreement, Mr.
Miller advised that a revised draft resolution (Attachment A) had been provided
to provide more clarity. While minor elements remained to be resolved, Mr.
Miller advised the City Council should feel comfortable in adopting the revised
resolution at this time.
City
Attorney Gaughan agreed with Acting City Manager Miller. Mr. Gaughan informed
the City Council that this action item to adopt the resolution had originally
come forward without receipt of the grant agreement; opining that was not a
preferred course of action that he or staff would recommend, therefore
prompting the city to ask the Metropolitan Council for a copy of the draft
agreement. Mr. Gaughan advised that after his office and staff's review prior
to this final action, changes had been made in the resolution demanding more
definitive paperwork prior to City Council formal approval.
Mayor
Roe clarified that the agreement would be monitored and reimbursement made
based on contract award, not pending items, but actual expenses incurred.
Acting
City Manager Miller agreed; and further clarified each of those projects would
require approval by the City Council when they were scheduled to actually
occur.
Assistant
Public Works Director Freihammer also clarified that the projects the city
would be applying to the Metropolitan Council had already been approved by the
City Council and completed through October of 2016 or earlier.
For
the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe provided a brief overview of the Inflow/Infiltration
issues currently before many municipalities, including the City of Roseville,
including addressing illegal residential sump pump discharge to the sanitary
sewer system.
McGehee
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11365 (Attachment A as
revised) entitled, "Approval of Grant Agreement between Metropolitan
Council and the City of Roseville for Grant Eligible Works, authorizing
the Mayor and City Manager to executive the agreement, subject to minor
modifications and final review by the City Attorney; for infrastructure work to
reduce inflow and infiltration (I/I) to the metropolitan sanitary sewer
disposal system.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
10.
General Ordinances for Adoption
a.
Erosion Control Ordinance Amendment
Assistant
Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer provided a brief overview of the
proposed update to Section 803.04: Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of Title
8, Public Works chapter of city code, as detailed in the RCA of today's date.
Mr. Freihammer noted one of those changes proposed was to reduce land disturbance
provisions for greater than 10,000 square feet to greater than 5,000 square
feet for minor projects outside shoreland districts, and adjust fees
accordingly. Mr. Freihammer noted this would provide more consistency and be
comparable to other requirements, and provided examples of some of those
projects (e.g. parking lot expansion, new impervious coverage, etc.).
At
the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Freihammer advised the process for
submitting a stormwater management plan and applicable fees that would be reviewed
on a case by case basis.
Mayor
Roe provided an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak
for or against.
Etten
moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1510 (Attachment A)
entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Title 8, Storm Water Drainage
Ordinance of Roseville City Code."
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Etten
moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1510 (Attachment B)
entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Selected Text of Roseville City Code, Title 8,
Chapter 803, Storm Water drainage."
Roll
Call (Super Majority Required)
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Recess
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 7:11 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:13 p.m.
11.
Presentations
a.
Accept the Cedarholm Clubhouse Replacement Advisory Team Final
Report and Authorize Pursuance of Professional design Services
Parks &
Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, Assistant Director Jill Anfang, and Advisory
Team Chair Dave Holt were in attendance for this presentation.
Mr. Brokke
reviewed a history of the City Council directive and guidance to the Advisory
Team and introduced Mr. Holt for his executive summary. Mr. Brokke noted Mr.
Holt had served on the City's Parks & Recreation Commission, and
subsequently agreed to facilitate the Team. Mr. Brokke thanked Mr. Holt and
the entire Team for their extensive work over the last six months, including
not only meeting attendance but research between meetings. Mr. Brokke
recognized the leadership of Ms. Anfang as staff lead in keeping track of the
many details for the Team.
Mr. Holt
provided an executive summary of the Final Report of the Cedarholm Clubhouse
Replacement Advisory Team, including a background, mission and purpose as
directed by the City Council, and a timeline since November of 2014 when the
Parks & Recreation Commission had initially brought their concerns to the
City Council seeking future direction. Mr. Holt reported on the many elements
of input received by the Team, with an average of twenty-three participants on
the Team by the end of the process, with a total of nine thematic meetings including
community engagement opportunities.
As deliverables
provided by the Team, Mr. Holt referenced this Final Report and recommendation
to the Parks & Recreation and subsequently tonight for the City Council;
and reminded the Council of the Park & Recreation Commission's original four
options from prior to the Advisory Team getting underway and detailed pros,
cons and considerations for each of those options.
Option 1:
Rebuild to Existing Size and Function
Option 2:
Rebuild to size similar to larger park buildings
Option 3:
Rebuild to smaller size for golf check-in, limited seating/snack
area
Option 4:
Renovate existing clubhouse
As detailed in
the report (pages 11 - 12), Mr. Holt reviewed the four recommendations of the
Team, as follows:
1) Replace
the Clubhouse
2) Use
Identified Funding Options (including Park Renewal Program remaining funds
of $400,000, available and applicable Park Dedication Fees of approximately
$1.37 million, and available Golf Course Enterprise Funds anticipated by
yearend of approximately $200,000).
Mr. Holt
suggested other options could include levy and bonding; as well as the building
design process remaining open to possibly expanding space for the Roseville
Historical Society, maintenance and storage, that would also impact funding
sources; as well as pursuing partnerships and collaborations. Mr. Holt opined
that the Team felt this would provide maximizing not only access but also impact
revenue sources, perhaps similarly realized by the regional OVAL use.
3) Plan
for Supporting Infrastructure
Mr. Holt
highlighted the Team's support to recommend replacement or improvement of the
entire area supporting golf operations, including parking; maintenance; storage
of golf carts, maintenance and product storage; and improved working conditions
to meet current building and safety standards and code requirements.
4) Reconsider
the Status of the Golf Course as an Enterprise Fund
Mr. Holt noted
criteria suggested the golf course was not currently operating fully as an
Enterprise Fund; warranting current/future operations and capital needs
reconsideration.
Mayor Roe
invited any Advisory Team members in the audience to add their comments to the
presentation, with no one volunteering. Mayor Roe thanked all for their
contributions, and then provided an opportunity for public comment.
Public
Comment
Betty Wolfangle, 837 Heinel
Drive, Member Roseville Historical Society
Ms. Wolfangle
thanked the Team for the privilege of looking at the draft Final Report before
tonight's City Council presentation and provided thoughts from the perspective
of the Historical Society. Ms. Wolfangle commended the Team for their good and
thorough review and report.
From the Society's
perspective, and recognizing budget shortfalls, Ms. Wolfangle stated their
understanding in being able to consider their organization as part of the new
building, especially when they were not a revenue source. Even though the wish
may be for a multi-faceted building for year-round use, Ms. Wolfangle noted the
Society was aware of the reality of the revenue shortfall and their inability
to remedy that or produce funding.
However, Ms. Wolfangle
reminded the City Council that the Society had been in existence for over forty
years, and remained "homeless." Based on the proposed footprint for a golf
course building, Ms. Wolfangle questioned if the square footage available could
meet the needs of their organization, advising that the bottom line was that
their optimum needs would be approximately 1,300 square feet to provide
showroom, office space and files. Ms. Wolfangle noted the Society had a lot of
computer and file storage needs as it represented over 100 years of Roseville
history, and still collecting artifacts. Ms. Wolfangle noted the Roseville artifact
collection was the envy of many communities, as well as other agencies.
Ms. Wolfangle
advised that they were excited about those many artifacts, currently stored at
Fire Station No. 2, and would appreciate being able to display them and change
those displays frequently or seasonally, rather than simply stockpiling them in
a room. However, Ms. Wolfangle noted storage would also be needed for those
items not on display.
Specific to
parking, Ms. Wolfangle advised that the Society meets approximately four times
annually, exclusive of special events; meeting during daytime. One of the
attractions to the clubhouse, Ms. Wolfangle reported was access to a kitchen,
restroom facilities, and parking for their average needs for twenty-five
people; making that space perfect for them.
Ms. Wolfangle
stated the Society had been dreaming of a permanent home and expressed her
personal hope that she lived long enough to see it become reality.
If consideration
is given to the facility no longer being an Enterprise Fund, Ms. Wolfangle
questioned what was wrong with raising taxes to support it.
Ms. Wolfangle
advised that the Society had been in the process of raising money and getting
pledges, and had spent many hours talking with the Minnesota Historical Society
for grant potential; and had been encouraged that the Society was qualified for
funding. When the Society considered Evergreen Park, Ms. Wolfangle stated they
had been told by the Minnesota Historical Society at that time that they were
eligible for grant funds to cover that expense, ranging from $150,000 to
$200,000. Ms. Wolfangle suggested if an additional 1,300 square feet was added
to the golf clubhouse, there may be the potential of getting that kind of money
to help fund the new clubhouse as well.
In conclusion,
Ms. Wolfangle stated that the Roseville Historical Society had agreed that they
didn't just want cabinets sitting around at the clubhouse for storage, but wanted
a display area or showroom for Roseville's precious and enviable artifacts and
treasures, needing to be showed off.
Benno Sydow,
2750 Oxford Street N
As a member of
the Advisory Team, Mr. Sydow stated how impressed he was by the thoroughness of
city staff during this process. Mr. Sydow opined that every point possible had
been covered, and encouraged the city to proceed with replacing this outdated
facility as it served an important part of the community.
City
Council Questions and Deliberation
Councilmember
McGehee asked if there was a particular reason the golf course issue had not
been addressed as a community survey question in 2011,2014 or 2016.
With Mr. Brokke
responding he was unaware of any particular reason, Mayor Roe clarified that
this was a City Council survey.
Councilmember
McGehee pointed out a number of questions were addressed specific to parks and
recreation, as well as in the Park & Recreation specific survey done in
2011. Based on the 2011 survey, Councilmember McGehee noted indications were
that 24% or respondents used the golf course, and Mr. Brokke provided an
estimate that 29% of the users of the course were Roseville residents.
Councilmember McGehee stated she needed to have more understanding of those
estimates; and also why there was no difference in resident or non-resident
fees, as well as learning the average fee for a 9-hole, par 3 golf course in
the Twin Cities area.
Mr. Brokke
noted all fees were reviewed and reported annually as the City Council set its
fee schedule for the coming year. Mr. Brokke advised that staff attempted to
recommend fees that would remain within the market, with Roseville's probably
somewhat lower than some, but similar on average to the majority.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Holt clarified that the $200,000 balance in the
Enterprise Fund was the projected balance at this time.
Councilmember
McGehee questioned how much of the annual revenues were over and above operating
expenses.
Mr. Brokke
responded that, depending on the weather, it should come in close to covering
annual operating costs, but not contribute to any capital needs of the golf
course. Mr. Brokke noted the fund balance fluctuated, but remained in the estimated
$200,000 range; with the total balance of approximately $250,000 and that additional
$50,000 held as a carry over to pay expenses prior to receipt of revenues.
If 60% to 70%
of golf course users are non-residents, Councilmember McGehee asked if there
was any plan or discussion for improving the revenue stream so Roseville
residents who didn't play golf or participated in any way no longer needed to
carry this rather large tax burden.
Mr. Brokke
responded that staff could consider residential and non-residential rates
differentials. However, Mr. Brokke noted it was often difficult to determine
residency status when people come in without requiring their driver's licenses
or some other type of verification. Mr. Brokke noted some of the anticipated
residential or non-residential data was available for open golf estimated at
approximately 40% residents and 60% non-residents for open golf with leagues
more readily defined.
Mr. Holt noted
it was not common for golf courses to charge resident versus non-resident fees,
since it was frequent that a family member from out-of-town may play with a
resident and be subjected to paying a higher fee.
Councilmember
Etten thanked the Advisory Team for their report and the extensive time spent
during the process.
Councilmember
Etten asked if there was a potential cost range for design services.
Mr. Holt
estimated approximately $20,000 to $25,000 for design development, with overall
engineering services typically 10% of the total project cost including the whole
process from schematic design, design development to construction documents.
At the request
of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Brokke advised that after consultation with Finance
Director Miller, staff's recommended funding source would be from the golf
course fund balance.
Mayor Roe
clarified that the dollar amounts being provided at this point were
specifically for preliminary design services and not for complete engineering
services as part of that estimated 10%.
Mr. Brokke
concurred, advising that more discussion was needed on packaging of the
schematic design and design development.
Councilmember
McGehee referenced several pictures included in the Final Report, including the
clubhouse in New Brighton, and asked the cost of that example when it had been
constructed.
Mr. Brokke
recalled it was in the $1 million range at that time.
Councilmember McGehee
noted the cost of recent park building construction; with Mr. Brokke clarifying
the park buildings were recently built in the $600,000 to $1 million range
depending on their size and amenities.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Holt clarified how the city planned capital
expenses going forward was part of the discussion related to whether the golf
course remained an Enterprise Fund.
Noting the
example of fees for park and recreation activities and programs, Councilmember
McGehee stated she was not in favor of the golf course NOT being an Enterprise
Fund, opining she preferred to know the plan for how much needed to be set
aside for budgeting purposes.
Mayor Roe
opined it was not the Advisory Team's responsibility nor was it part of their
charge beyond making the recommendation, to move further down that process of
decision-making.
Councilmember
McGehee argued that hers was a reasonable question at this time, especially how
maintenance was intended long-term.
Mr. Holt
concurred that this was part of the Team's recommendation since the golf course
was not currently operating entirely as an Enterprise Fund, specifically
inclusive of capital and operating expenses. Mr. Holt reminded the City Council
and public that during the golf course's heyday and originally operating as an
Enterprise Fund, it was not only covering all golf course expenses, but allowed
the city to allocate additional reserves toward other city expenses.
Therefore, if that reallocation hadn't occurred, Mr. Holt questioned how those
additional reserves may have served replacement of the facility at this point
beyond the current $200,000 balance if that had not been siphoned off at the
discretion of City Councils over the years. Mr. Holt suggested remembering
that surplus when considering tax ramifications; and while not part of the
Advisory Team's charge even though they had touched upon it, asked that the
City Council explore its status as part of their recommendation.
Councilmember
McGehee thanked Mr. Holt for that additional information, stating she had not
been aware of that in her tenure on the City Council, but provided a broader
picture of the operations.
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, acceptance of the Cedarholm Clubhouse Replacement Advisory team's
Final Report.
Mayor Roe and
City Councilmembers collected thanked the Advisory Team and staff for their
work and their comprehensive report.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Specific to the
next requested action, Mayor Roe noted additional work would still be needed
for approval by the City Council at a later date, but this would serve to
initiate the process.
Etten
moved, Laliberte seconded, authorizing staff to work with the Parks and
recreation Commission to pursue professional design services to create a plan
for the replacement of the Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse.
Councilmember
Laliberte asked if, in the past, the city had solicited professional design
services with a hint of partnering with a local architectural or construction
firm; and asked if such a provision could be included in the Request for
Proposals (RFP). Councilmember Laliberte suggested something that would allow
partnering with a local firm already part of the community; or also questioned
if something similar to the "Playground Build" opportunity could be used for
volunteers to perform finish or interior work.
Mr.
Brokke noted that had been discussed as part of the process, and while it could
be considered, he was not aware of any RFP's that asked for partners in financial
participation.
Councilmember
Laliberte suggested those local firms may also wish to discount their services
from their role in the community.
Mayor
Roe cautioned compliance with contracting laws, and treatment of like entities
similarly.
City
Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe.
Mr.
Brokke noted that, through the Parks Renewal Program process, and selected
architect, while the Team wasn't seeking to duplicate the architecture of those
park buildings, the desire was that a clubhouse complement their design in
order that it be recognized as a Roseville building. Due to that extensive
process, Mr. Brokke anticipated it may be possible that the architectural firm
used for those buildings may be interested in submitting a specific club house
proposal.
Mayor
Roe suggested that these discussions may more applicable as part of the design
proposal and costs associated come into play as the City Council discusses how
to pay for a new clubhouse; such as in-kind services or community labor for
certain aspects, rather than as part of the initial design process.
Councilmember
McGehee stated she had brought that idea to the attention of Councilmember
Laliberte earlier. Councilmember McGehee stated she was interested not only
with in-kind in that sense, but also involving art high schools where they
offered associate degrees in the field or St. Paul College who may be interested
in partnering as a student activity to help with the build. Councilmember
McGehee opined that would also serve as a nice link to the community and education.
Given
the current situation, Councilmember McGehee stated she had a problem with the
motion from her understanding, noting that while many options had been
presented, it had yet to be determined the building size or whether it was to
be a multi-faceted building. Councilmember McGehee opined that discussion
needed to occur before moving down this particular route and preceding seeking
a design.
Mayor
Roe clarified that the point of the design was to provide those options and
range of costs. Mayor Roe noted the Advisory Team reached the point where they
could go no further in their analysis without having those costs identified.
Mayor Roe further clarified that this was not action authorizing final plans,
but simply seeking conceptual designs.
Mr.
Brokke concurred, noting the intent of the Team was to seek initial concept
designs as the next and first step.
Councilmember
Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe and Mr. Brokke, noting the considerable time
spent by the Team; and now the next step needed for design services to say if
the building was best relocated on the golf course site to facilitate other
amenities; or how the whole site should be configured on this limit piece of
land for best functionality.
At
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Holt clarified the four options
presented by the Parks & Recreation Commission prior to the Advisory team,
as noted earlier, all under the caveat for City Council direction to the Team
that they stay within the current footprint while also considering additional
space (e.g. basement). From the perspective of the Team, Mr. Holt advised that
the same footprint remained under their consideration, whether it remained at
its current site, or was relocated on the site. As mentioned in the Final
Report, Mr. Holt noted that other needs were part of that accommodation and
design; with the architect better able to bring that into the discussion (e.g.
parking ratios, building design, etc.).
Councilmember
McGehee stated before starting from scratch and changing the building
orientation, she wanted to ensure the building was energy efficient as part of
its major components (e.g. windows, walls or solar panel) and asked that an
architect have that as part of his expertise; and even if it cost more money upfront
to incorporate that energy efficiency rather than paying the ramifications of
not being energy efficient further down the road. Regarding her long-term
maintenance concerns, Councilmember McGehee opined it would be shortsighted to
construct a facility without it being energy efficient and asking residents for
more support after the fact. Councilmember McGehee also stated she would like
to see any levy discussion dropped, given the history of 42% increases in taxes
over the last few years, when many Roseville residents are on fixed incomes.
Mr.
Holt reported that came up during the Team's brainstorming discussion; and
advised that the intent was to have access to all of that and additional
options from the architect as he proceeds with preliminary design work and
outlining cost considerations, and ultimate recommendation to staff and the
City Council. Therefore, as noted in the Final Report, Mr. Holt reiterated the
Team's request that the City Council remain open to funding options outlined as
well as some other possibilities, including levy or bonding.
Councilmember
Etten asked if the intent was to use a Best Value Procurement process moving
forward for construction.
Mr.
Brokke stated that had been considered as an option, noting the good experience
to-date in using that process as well as cost savings realized. However, Mr.
Brokke stated the intent would also be to enlist the help of Arizona State
University again to help, with additional costs to seek their assistance.
Mayor
Roe stated he was supportive of the motion to proceed with preliminary design
work to better understand the costs and associated considerations in looking at
funding. However, before considering levy funding or bonding, Mayor Roe stated
he would prefer a discussion on greens fees and other potential bonding options.
From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe stated his strong preference is to
include a home for the Historical Society, and expressed his intrigue with the
idea of multi-seasonal use of the building (e.g. cross country skiing) and
clubhouse amenities for those activities as well as winter month rentals of the
facility. However, Mayor Roe noted the importance of getting the design
process underway to clarify those questions, prompting other questions with
that cost and what amenities may be possible.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
Abstentions:
McGehee.
Motion
carried.
12.
Public Hearings and Action Consideration
13.
Budget Items
14.
Business Items (Action Items)
15.
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
a.
Review and Consider Adopting a City of Roseville and Economic
Development Authority Public Financing Policy/Business Subsidy Policy
Mayor
Roe recognized and on behalf of the City Council and community congratulated
Ms. Kari Collins, recently promoted from Interim Community Development Director
to the City of Roseville's new Community Development Director.
Ms.
Collins thanked Mayor Roe and reintroduced Jason Aarsvold from Ehlers, Inc. to
present a draft Public Financing Policy/Business Subsidy Policy (Attachment B).
Mr.
Aarsvold presentation included an overview of the policy, incorporating changes
since the original draft and input from previous City Council discussions. Of
those revisions, Mr. Aarsvold noted the following:
·
Rearranged sections and title to place in order of
importance/relevance for those referencing policy
·
Incorporated specific recommendation from cc on 8/29/16
·
Interpreted cc feedback to inform general provisions of policy as
well as to complete "desired qualifications"
·
Incorporated recommendations from REDA attorney
Councilmember
Etten suggested revised language to Section 2.A (page 2) of the draft policy;
and without objection, consensus was to remove the subordinate clause and not
separate out "when such assistance complies" beyond statutory requirements.
Councilmember
Etten noted the similarities of Items 2.A.4 and 5 (page 2) but asked if they
were different enough to list separate due to the "but for" analysis).
Mr.
Aarsvold opined that they were similar, but he thought distinct enough to include
both. Mr. Aarsvold stated #4 addressed extraordinary redevelopment costs,
while #5 provided varying dynamics possibly due to a market dynamic versus extraordinary
costs.
Mr.
Aarsvold clarified that both items may rise to the "but for" test, particular
for tax increment financing, while a project under Item #4 may have
contaminated land and in order to get back on par with a Greenfield site, costs
would be incurred; while in Item #5, only a market dynamic may hinder
redevelopment on a clean site.
In
Item 4.A (page 4), Councilmember Etten questioned the intent of a project
meeting "any of" the qualifications or meeting all. Councilmember Etten
clarified that just because a project met the qualifications didn't
automatically mean they would get money from the city. By consensus, it was
determined to strike "any of" from the second sentence in 4.A.
Councilmember
Etten sought clarification of language in Section 4.2.C.5 (page 5) related to
rehabilitation of tear downs.
From
his perspective, Mayor Roe identified expansion equaling growth, while rehabilitation
equaled an existing substandard building.
Mr.
Aarsvold offered to further clarify language, but advised that his assumption,
from past conversations, was that the intent was for a project needing
rehabilitation, redevelopment or expansion. Mr. Aarsvold stated he had tried
to stay away from language such as "substandard," due to statutory definitions
with that term for tax increment finding. Mr. Aarsvold opined his intent was
to leave the language open enough while still meeting the city's desired goals.
Councilmember
McGhee asked Ms. Collins if, from her staff perspective, this provided a
sufficient working tool for staff while not hindering their initial review of
projects.
Ms.
Collins responded that this framework would prove significantly helpful when
staff fielded calls as to whether or not the city would support a particular
use. Ms. Collins reported that staff received a significant number of calls
from entities seeking public assistance before they even had a specific use or
project in mind. With this framework in place, Ms. Collins advised that it
would provide staff the ability to give a definitive "no" response where
applicable; while structured to provide city staff with sufficient leverage to
identify those eligible projects that could be encouraged to make application
to the city.
Ms.
Collins reported that staff was currently working with Ehlers to develop an
application using the City Council's stated criteria as outlined in this
policy.
Councilmember
Laliberte thanked Ms. Collins and the Ehlers staff for the draft policy that
well-reflected discussions and City Council intent.
McGehee
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of a City of Roseville and Economic Development
Authority Public Financing Policy/business Subsidy Policy; amended with
minor technical revisions as per tonight's discussion.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
McGehee, Laliberte, Etten and Roe.
Nays:
None.
16.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Acting City
Manager Miller provided a preview of upcoming agenda items.
17.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
18.
Adjourn Meeting
Laliberte moved,
Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:46 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Laliberte,
Etten, McGehee and Roe.
Nays: None.