City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

November 14, 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.

 

2.       Pledge of Allegiance

 

3.      Approve Agenda

Council member Willmus requested removal of Item 8.d from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.

 

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

 

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

4.      Public Comment

 

a.            Receive Update on Rice Street Garden Project

Sherry Sanders and Ron Peterson, representing the Garden Leadership Council provided the 2016 Rice Street Gardens Final Report and a short video presentation on this first year.  Ms. Sanders thanked supporters of this effort as detailed in the final report provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

 

In turn, Mayor Roe thanked the volunteers and community supporters, noting this was an amazing testimony of what can happen when a community gets together - without government involvement - in doing for each other and their neighbors.  On behalf of the community, City Council, and personally, Mayor Roe stated he looked forward to the 2017 growing season.

 

b.            Sherry Sanders, Co-Founder of "Do Good Roseville"

Ms. Sanders, representing Do Good Roseville, provided a bench handout entitled "Race in Society, Science and History" inviting area residents to join in viding and discussing a three-part series revealing how the myth of race took hold and had retained is power.  Ms. Sanders provided logistical information for the three episodes; with the information available online at DoGoodRoseville.com/Racism.

 

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

 

Mayor Roe announced several upcoming events, including the upcoming SE Roseville Community meeting regarding the best use of the former National Guard Armory building and property, following the City of Roseville and Ramsey County not exercising their rights-of-first refusal to acquire the site; and now seeking community input on future zoning of the property as it most likely goes on the market in the near future.

 

Further announcements made by Mayor Roe included the Fourth Annual Ovalumination; volunteer opportunity to stack and drag precut Buckthorn at Cottontail Park; and the Third Annual Roseville Area Business Exchange; along with logistics and contact information for each event.

 

As City of Roseville representative to the Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG), Councilmember Laliberte reported that city membership dues for 2017 would remain unchanged.

 

6.    Recognitions, Donations and Communications

 

7.            Approve Minutes

 

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 November 14, 2016 and related attachments.

 

a.            Canvass Results of City Council Election

City Manager Trudgeon referenced the updated final tally received from Ramsey County after dissemination of the meeting packets, and provided as a bench handout tonight.

 

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, declaring the candidates elected to the office of the Roseville City Council as follows:

Name                   Total Votes

Jason Etten              10,683

Lisa Laliberte           10,173

Wayne Groff              6,964

                       

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

b.            Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize Final Payment, and Commence One-Year Warranty Period on the 2016 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project

Mayor Roe noted that, while the final amount for this project was over the original contract due to additions, it only resulted in an approximate 1% increase; and thanked the Public Works staff for their efforts in keeping the project costs in line.

 

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11373 (Attachment) entitled, "Final Contract Acceptance - 2016 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project;" initiating the one-year warranty and authorizing final payment in an amount not to exceed $47,473.85.

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

c.            Twin Lakes East PIK Parcels Registered Land Survey

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Manager Trudgeon clarified the tracts and specific ownership of the various tracts related to this survey.

 

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11374 (Attachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Approving the Registered Land Survey for Parcels of Land within the Twin Lakes Area;" known as the Twin Lakes East PIK Parcels.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

e.            Issuance of Two 1-4 Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor Licenses

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of two 1-4 day Temporary Liquor License applications for Bent Brewstillery as it hosts two events entailing the selling of spirits on site at 1744 Terrace Drive; as detailed in the RCA dated today's date.

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

 

d.          Consider a Conditional Use pursuant to Table 1005-1 and Section 1009 of Roseville City Code to Allow a Yoga Studio at 1940 - 1844 Lexington Avenue (PF16-028)

City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated November 14, 2016 and related attachments.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the revised draft resolution (Attachment C) provided as a bench handout tonight.

 

Given parking concerns in this area, Councilmember Willmus asked staff if there was an existing parking agreement in place for the adjacent hardware store and this parcel. 

 

City Planner Thomas Paschke responded that there was not an agreement in place.

 

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11375 (Attachment C, as revised) entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Yoga Studio/Fitness Center as a CONDITIONAL USE at 1940-1944 Lexington Avenue."

 

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

 

10.        General Ordinances for Adoption

 

a.            Consider Text Amendments to Employment Districts, Chapter 1006 and Section 1009, Procedures, to include Motor Freight Terminal as a Conditional Use (PROJ 0017-Amdt. 30)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request for text amendments as detailed in the RCA dated November 14, 2016.

 

Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Paschke that the request was for general text amendments allowing for future applications for such a Conditional Use, and not related to a specific application for a Conditional Use on any particular site at this time.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced the truck terminals currently operating in Roseville, and stated that while she had no opposition to this text amendment in particular she was concerned about the deterioration with long-term storage of the semi-trailers.  Councilmember McGehee asked if there was any way to condition that the trailers had to be maintained to some degree versus resulting in rusting hulks.

 

Mr. Paschke advised that once a Conditional Use is reviewed for a specific applicant and property such a condition for approval could be considered along with other site-specific use.  Mr. Paschke noted that any reasonable condition that was germane to a use could be added (e.g. screening, additional setbacks, and site issues related to adjacent property uses).

 

Councilmember Etten asked if there was any provision for an approved access plan for semi-trailer parking from the Fire Marshal.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that staff looked at sites and uses differently depending on whether they were analyzed and recommended for approval under a Conditional Use or Interim Use and their respective parameters, such as specific plans and spacing that had been addressed for the last three Interim Use permits vetted by the city.  Mr. Paschke noted that current uses for those zoning areas did not allow semi-trailer storage, thus the application for an Interim Use.  Mr. Paschke reviewed the differences for the outdoor storage of trailers under an Interim Use in designated zoning areas where they would not typically be allowed and those considered more "active" sites with semi-trailers stored outdoors storage under a Conditional Use, such as would be applicable if this text amendment was approved for Motor Freight Terminal uses. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Paschke distinguished between the already-permitted Warehousing use and this proposed addition of Motor Freight Terminal as a Conditional Use, with Warehousing generally involving storage for longer terms versus simply trans loading merchandise from one truck to another in the Motor Freight Terminal use.  

 

Mayor Roe noted the reference in the RCA (page 2) consisting of an excerpt from the 2010 Zoning Code update that defined "Motor Freight Terminals" with staff determining that the use had been inadvertently omitted from the table of uses in that update.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated he wasn't sure he agreed that it was an oversight, but actually a desire to limit this type of use.

 

Based on staff's research and available information, and based on the definitions for "Industrial District" and Zoning Code definition of "Motor Freight Terminal," Mr. Paschke reported that to the best of staff's knowledge it was simply an oversight in not listing that particular use.  Mr. Paschke stated this was supported more given the number of such uses and their preferred location on the west side versus the east side of I-35W.

 

Specific to the narrative related to a principle use or structure, Councilmember Willmus asked how it was determined if there was more than one on a site.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that there could actually be two or more primary buildings on one site, and two or more separate uses.  Mr. Paschke opined this was true on a number of sites in Roseville that would be no different than the narrative from the one applicant referenced by Councilmember Willmus at 2600 County Road C.

 

Mayor Roe noted that the City Council was cognizant of the discussions held at the Planning Commission meetings.

 

Public Comment

Ann Steingraeber of Winthrop & Weinstine on behalf of a Roseville property owner, Koch Trucking

Ms. Steingraeber reiterated comments on record from the Public Hearing held at the Planning Commission in October and November, along with their request related to Section 37.a.  Ms. Steingraeber noted their request was to remove the text for a blanket prohibition for parking between a building and street, and consider that on a case by case basis under a Conditional Use and then conditioned accordingly.  Ms. Steingraeber opined that this would serve the city and future applicants as well and allow for a one-step application process versus a two-step approach for a Conditional Use and Variance process. 

 

While asking for the City Council's consideration of her client's request, Ms. Steingraeber advised that they would accept the City Council's decision; and due to timing concerns, had already taken steps for consideration of their Conditional Use and Variance at the December Planning Commission meeting.

 

Robert K. Buss, Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., 42000 Vahlberg Drive, Minneapolis, MN (looking to purchase 2500 County Road C)

Mr. Buss asked for a decision by the City Council tonight, noting that there was a timing conflict to the degree that the next Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for December 7 and the last City Council meeting of 2016 was prior to that on December 5, 2016.

Council Deliberation

At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff's rationale for including the language in Item 37.a for locations of outdoor semi-trailer storage was tied to how they are considered in city code, specific to "outdoor storage."  Mr. Paschke advised that this language was consistent with other city code regulations on all sites, including Industrial sites.  While recognizing the merits brought forward during public comment and their desire that this be considered on a case by case basis, Mr. Paschke advised that staff's intent was to address outdoor storage and how it relates to buildings with more than one public street to remain consistent.  However, Mr. Paschke advised that staff wasn't necessarily opposed to the City Council deleting it.

 

Councilmember Etten clarified, with confirmation by Mr. Paschke that a review of other parts of city code would consistently list that "no outdoor storage was allowed between a principle building and street."  Councilmember Etten asked if an applicant could receive approval for such outdoor storage as a condition under a Conditional Use without the added Variance process.

 

Mr. Paschke reviewed how staff analyzed outdoor storage, including but not limited to semi-trailers parked anywhere in the yard, that would be taken into consideration under a Conditional Use application and specific mitigation efforts by the city and others addressed on any given site.  With each site reviewed individually, including how many principle uses were involved and how many streets were adjacent to the use(s), Mr. Paschke advised that part of the analysis would include whether or not an upgraded site plan for a project and potential screening or appropriate placement of outdoor storage (e.g. semi-trailers) were appropriate as related to a public street and adjacent properties and uses. Mr. Paschke noted this allowed a review for each individual property and use versus a blanket condition saying "No Parking" on the site at all.

 

Mayor Roe asked if there were exceptions to Section 37.a from staff's perspective.

 

Mr. Paschke responded that there could be, but this particular section dealt specifically with outdoor semi-trailer storage, and other "outdoor storage" could involve numerous things.  Mr. Paschke opined that this particular section took that "outdoor storage" to a different level in the process.

 

Through application of city code to future situations, Mayor Roe asked if there may be problems if a given site and situation where outdoor storage might be allowed between a building and adjacent street if some type of mitigation was done. If recognizing the proposed language as the default - no storage between a building and any street - Mayor Roe questioned if this set the city up for unintended consequences or served to preserve more flexibility on a site.

 

Mr. Paschke noted he couldn't respond either one way or the other, but reiterated the preference for review on a case by case basis.

 

Based on his understanding of Mayor Roe's question, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised if the language was retained as recommended by staff for Section 37.a (lines 78-84 of the RCA), the city could attach a condition permitting semi-trailer storage between a principle building and adjacent public street if applicable to a given site and use.

 

In trying to understand the language and future uses, Mayor Roe advised he was trying to ensure the process going forward for a Conditional Use and/or Variance to facilitate similar applications.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted this discussion and staff's responses were consistent with the discussions held at the Planning Commission as well.

 

Councilmember Laliberte stated she would err on the side of consistency with language found elsewhere in city code; and also spoke in support of utilizing the Variance process for unique situations that may arise.  Since the City of Roseville is so developed, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there may be many properties with unique situations, and that language could not be developed tonight that would address each of those issues going forward.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she recognized the scheduling issue brought forward by one applicant's legal counsel speaking tonight and at previous Planning Commission meetings and their situation, but stated the City Council should also not be making general citywide decisions under that rationale.

 

Councilmember McGehee voiced a different perspective based on a Conditional Use addressing screening for an entire site and the role of the City Council and Planning Commission in reviewing those applications.  Councilmember McGehee noted that a condition could be imposed by either body for no trailer storage on whatever side is chosen and a determination made at that time.  Councilmember McGehee questioned if she was supportive of that being part of the Variance process, but instead supported it as part of an overall site plan review that would not only provide more flexibility for conditioning a Conditional Use, but allow the City Council some control over those conditions as well versus consideration by only the Variance Board.

 

Councilmember Willmus referenced the meeting minutes from the October 5, 2016 Planning Commission and their reference to different definitions related to principle uses and things to be vetted by the City Council subsequent to that meeting; and the Commission's tabling any action after concerns had been expressed by them that this additional language change had not yet been properly vetted by staff, nor had it received any public feedback as it hadn't been part of the initial staff request for text amendments.  Councilmember Willmus asked if staff was aware of any other text amendments potentially yet to be addressed; with Mr. Paschke responding that he was not aware of any others at this point.

 

Mayor Roe reviewed the options available for the City Council to consider tonight.  Mayor Roe stated his concern in removing the language altogether as requested by the applicant's legal counsel speaking tonight was there was then no reminder that it was an important point to consider.  Therefore, Mayor Roe stated that he would not be supportive of removing that reference completely.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his reluctance as well to taking the language out completely, depending on what the city preferred and what direction they wanted to move forward with related to outdoor storage.  When reviewing this issue, Councilmember Willmus stated that he got a sense that some of the controls in place for the city and future land use were no longer available if the language was struck; noting his concerns with that ramification.

 

From the other perspective, Councilmember McGehee asked what would be amenable if there was a selected primary street by definition that would serve as a flag for staff to address with any other abutting streets.

 

Mayor Roe clarified that he also preferred to err on the side of leaving the language as recommended by staff, allowing the City Council to retain some flexibility if they so desired.

 

McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1514 (Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Table 1005-1 and Section 1009.02.D of Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance);" amended as follows:

"All outdoor semi-trailer storage shall occur on paved surfaces consistent with the parking area requirements of Section 1019.11 of this Title, and shall adhere to the parking area setback requirements in the applicable zoning district except that no outdoor semi-trailer storage shall be allowed between a principle building and the adjacent [primary] public street [as determined by Planning staff].  Areas of outdoor semi-trailer storage shall not obstruct required drive aisles or parking stalls."

 

Councilmember Etten opined that revised language to staff's recommendation made it clearer in addition to identifying any additional conditions if and when needed.  Councilmember Etten further opined that it could serve to protect other adjacent uses to a site with screening provisions as well; along with keeping the primary street more easily identified when adjacent to other uses accordingly.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten's comments, opining this created a sufficient flag for Planning staff as well as future City Councils.

 

While having supported the language as recommended by staff, Councilmember Laliberte stated she was not bothered by this minor change as proposed in the motion, and would support it.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried.

 

11.        Presentations

 

a.            Receive Update on Roseville A/D

Ms. Lori LaBay, representing the Roseville Alzheimer's & Dementia Community Action Team (RSVL A/D), provided an update on the team's most recent efforts and initiatives.  Ms. LaBay commended City Manager Trudgeon for his leadership, noting to the team's knowledge Roseville was the first city with a page on its website devoted to A/D, with that city leadership garnering nationwide attention.  Ms. LaBay thanked the city for allowing direct access by the team to city staff and departments, along with space for information racks with city backing, adding to their outreach and education efforts.  In addition to the city and other partnerships, Ms. LaBay also recognized the Roseville Area Senior Program (RASP) and Ramsey County Library - Roseville Branch for their major partnering efforts.

 

Ms. LaBay noted receipt of an ACT grant to further these grass roots efforts, and also acknowledged the support of the Community Health Awareness Team (CHAT), and their overlapping goals and support of and for each other.

 

Ms. LaBay reported on and provided information materials as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, related to their outreach efforts, with additional information available on the city website at www.cityofroseville.com/dementiainfo.  Ms. LaBay reported on some of the resent coping sessions, attendance and topics covered, and reviewed future plans going forward, including development of a guideline in conjunction with the City's Police and Fire Departments to serve as a model for other cities.  Ms. LaBay advised that the plan was to research and develop, and then incorporate a basic resource information form for use by the 9-1-1 system and subsequent staff training.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked Ms. LaBay for the team's use of C-TV and not just the city's website for their outreach.  Councilmember McGehee also referenced the availability of various tracking devices that could be expanded in the future for developmentally disabled and/or autistic residents.

 

Ms. LaBay noted the variety of resources and types of bracelets currently available, but also noted the cost of some of those options was prohibitive but continued to be considered as options, depending on funding available or subsidized resources found.

 

Sara Barsel

Ms. Barsel reported that the Roseville Fire Department had been working on some of those tracking options, with their research involving units that were easier to wear.  Given the number of bright, tech-savvy people in Roseville, Ms. Barsel suggested the city sponsor a contest enticing them to develop something that would function similarly but be smaller than those currently available on the market.

 

With various options being discussed, and while there was a wide range to choose from, Ms. LaBay advised that there was an initial cost to purchase a bracelet (e.g. $200 - $300), along with a monthly maintenance fee (e.g. $30).

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was fantastic that Ms. LaBay was thanking the city and making viewers aware of what was available; but also noted the city's need to thank Ms. LaBay and the A/D team, who's passion and dedication in promoting ideas received from residents and volunteers, this effort would not be happening in Roseville.

 

Ms. LaBay also referenced a recent caregiver's survey done in conjunction with the U of MN, and available online, and being utilized nationwide and worldwide.

 

Mayor Roe recognized the amount of work that went into that survey.

 

City Manager Trudgeon echoed the comments of Councilmember Laliberte in thanking the team for their work day in and day out, and thanked Councilmember Laliberte for her work in creating the materials.  Mr. Trudgeon expressed his appreciation to be a part of the huge group effort, including those reporting and also in attendance in tonight's audience.

 

Ms. LaBay agreed it was a collaborative effort and had aligned people of passion and proven results.

 

Mayor Roe thanked the team and encouraged them to forge ahead.

 

12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration

 

13.        Budget Items

 

14.        Business Items (Action Items)

 

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

Mayor Roe recognized License Center supervisory staff in tonight's audience.

 

Finance Director Chris Miller introduced this discussion and reviewed staff's in-house research and discussion since the March 2016 discussion with the City Council based on previous direction.

Finance Director Miller reviewed three options (lines 12-15) identified by staff and financial considerations if the City Council wanted to pursue a city-owned facility (lines 26 - 29 of the RCA).  Mr. Miller reported on his preliminary conversations with the owners of two properties identified last spring and early summer.  Mr. Miller stated his personal support for this operation being located in a city-owned facility having now been in operation for several decades and continuing to serve as a vibrant operation with other city functions. Mr. Miller opined that given the added traffic from the License Center averaging 500 vehicles/day and the synergy with other government services, it made sense to have that function in proximity to the city campus. 

 

Over the last eight months or research, Mr. Miller reported that the most viable option found for a city-owned facility, but obviously the most costly as well, is to concentrate efforts on exploring existing city-owned land near the general campus area, including potential space at Veteran's Park and the north skating center parking lot.  Mr. Miller reviewed the options discussed in-house to repurpose an existing building on the city campus, but noted each brought their own set of conflicts, most significantly that of adequate parking. 

 

Mr. Miller displayed a map of the area being proposed city-owned Veteran's Park.  Mr. Miller noted this parcel could facilitate a 6,500 square foot footprint with the License Center currently using approximately 3,300 square feet, but to expand and streamline operations in a more customer-friendly atmosphere, suggested an additional 2,000 square feet.  Mr. Miller noted that any additional square footage could be considered for other city needs, including storage that was deemed to be currently lacking.

 

Finance Director Miller reviewed various opportunities and challenges with the proposed repurposing of Veteran's Park; use of existing green space; additional pressures on existing parking and sharing existing available parking; screening of the athletic field among a few considerations.  Mr. Miller noted that a substitute park space elsewhere in the city had yet to be identified.  Mr. Miller reviewed some of the parking options and challenges with use of adjacent ballfields and hours of operation for the License Center in the early evening and on Saturdays, and possible overflow parking into the skating center lot.  Mr. Miller concluded by stating that as now understood, it appears physically that a building of that size footprint on that site would be feasible without repurposing current activities and buildings on the campus.  Mr. Miller expressed staff's confidence that the building could be positioned to preserve options to the north and east for future grander ideas and pursuits in this general area as time and development opportunities came forward. 

 

Finance Director Miller reported that staff had also considered new construction on the NEW corner of the skating center lot that could provide space to tuck it in without impacting geothermal wells on the south.  However, Mr. Miller noted this option created parking issues with hockey and ice time, spilling over in the opposite direction and on neighborhood streets, already utilized during highly-attended events.  Mr. Miller also noted the current park & ride facility using part of the south lot, and if considering this site, perhaps that would need to be removed entirely.  Mr. Miller estimated the need for a minimum of forty parking spaces during the day for the License Center operation to facilitate employees and customers during their busiest times, and sometimes perhaps more.

 

Finance Director Miller reported that considerable time had been spent on this issue over many years, and based on the most recent City Council direction, staff had accelerated some of those conversations.  While there are some other appealing sites near the city campus, Mr. Miller advised there were no willing sellers yet identified.  However, if so directed, Mr. Miller expressed staff's willingness to seek appraisals as applicable in preparation of a formal, bona-fide offer to more strongly convey the city's commitment in acquiring new space.

 

At this point, Finance Director Miller advised that staff was seeking a direction from the City Council.  Mr. Miller noted that the city's lease was up for renewal the end of January of 2017, with the owner of that site willing to negotiate a new lease, once the proposed term was identified, and anticipating a 3% to 4% increase annually.  Mr. Miller advised that staff's negotiations for this leased space would be predicated on how aggressive the City Council wanted to be in defining a new space for this function.

 

Councilmember Willmus sought additional context on the other city needs (e.g. storage).

 

City Manager Trudgeon advised that, independent but also related to this discussion, was storage needs for the maintenance facility, currently woefully inadequate with nothing likely available on site.  While that additional space could be constructed elsewhere in the city and independent of the city campus, Mr. Trudgeon also noted the significant cost of doing so.  Regarding short-term storage needs, Mr. Trudgeon reported that the city was currently renting storage space; and since some of the storage was specific to heavy equipment that needed access in the early morning and/or weekend hours, he questioned whether or not it was compatible as part of the License Center, especially if for a new facility at Veteran's Park adjacent to residential properties.  While the existing maintenance facility on the city campus could be repurposed for the License Center and other city needs, Mr. Trudgeon noted that it would cost many millions of dollars to move the maintenance facility off-site, with bonds for the facility still being paid off.  At this point, Mr. Trudgeon noted staff had been able to cobble together storage space short-term, but admitted it didn't serve to address the bigger and longer-term issues.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated his desire for a more in-depth discussion on citywide needs versus taking a piecemeal approach.  While recognizing that the current lease for the License Center needed to be renewed in the very near future, Councilmember Willmus suggested reviewing facilities on the current city campus, as well as taking a more proactive approach to the issue to see if there was additional acreage around City Hall that could be more seriously looked at.

 

Councilmember Laliberte agreed that, with the City Council was continuing its efforts to not think or perform in a silo mentality, if this involved a bigger facility conversation, now was the time to have that broader discussion.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was fine in ramping up that discussion to consider all city needs, including possibly repurposing the maintenance building with the License Center located on the main floor, depending on options.  However, Councilmember Laliberte suggested considering going "up" versus just limiting the conversation to building "out."

 

Mayor Roe noted the large equipment storage involved in the maintenance facility versus personnel that could be more amenable for a second story.

 

In general, Councilmember Etten supported looking at the big picture versus constructing a 6,500 square foot building only to find that more space was needed.  If the need was to accelerate the conversation now, Councilmember Etten supported that process.  Councilmember Etten asked staff to report on how many square feet were involved in the License Center and Passport Office operations.

 

Finance Director Miller reported that the current operations took up approximately 3,300 square feet, but based on current growth over the last decade, opined it wasn't worth doing anything less than 5,000 square feet minimum.  Mr. Miller clarified that the footprint shown on the displayed map was provided only to show the potential impact to the site and adjacent properties with a 6,500 square foot building, and had not taken into consideration a second story or smaller or larger building on that same parcel.

 

Councilmember Etten referenced staff's identification of the need for an additional 2,000 square feet  of leased space in the RCA (lines 28 - 29) .  While seeing the need, Councilmember Etten opined that one way or another, the city would be looking to lease more space in the short-term.

 

Finance Director Miller agreed that, if the viability of getting into a city-owned facility was three or more years out, he would recommend a significant investment to the leased space, in addition to additional square footage, to provide a warmer and more inviting customer service look like the License Center used to have.  Mr. Miller noted the current space and operations were cramped with many physical limitations as to how many customers could be processed; with many having to wait outside in all kinds of weather, or try to time their visits during less busy hours.  Mr. Miller reported that it was a frequent observation to see customers walking away from the License Center. However, Mr. Miller noted there was no way to determine if those customers would return or simply have the incentive to go to another license center in the immediate area.  Mr. Miller noted the importance as part of that concern with 80% of those customers visiting the License Center being other than Roseville residents.

 

Councilmember Etten referenced his discussions with Parks & Recreation Director Brokke regarding space needs of that Department, shared space opportunities, and impacts to investing functions, as well as the Parks Master Plan concept for no net loss to available park space and acquisition of replacement square footage for any current park or open space that was eliminated.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated that she echoed most of the comments of her colleagues, and the need to look at the big picture as part of this space need.  However, Councilmember McGehee also noted the considerable amount of time discussing this with no action taken, and building up reserves to address space needs, but then frequent use of those reserves for other needs over the years.  With the License Center being a good revenue generator for the city, Councilmember McGehee recognized the need to make it a good experience for customers using it.  While addressing several options for the License Center, including repurposing the Public Works Maintenance Facility with a second story and installation of an elevator, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to remain in this area to retain the familiarity for repeat customers to the License Center and other government services nearby.  Councilmember McGehee offered her support of working with property owners as suggested by staff to determine if a purchase price could be negotiated for existing buildings as the most cost-effective option for the city, and potential to rent out any additional space to leverage city costs for their space.

 

Mayor Roe stated his interest in understanding more about the Public Works Maintenance Facility opportunities and challenges, and how that works with the remainder of the city campus.  While agreeing that adjacent properties are also favorable options, and could address future possibilities to meet the desire of the community for other facilities down the road (e.g. community center), Mayor Roe noted that property adjacent to the city campus obviously made the most sense.  Mayor Roe expressed interest in a win-win-win for all three parties if such an option could be pursued.  Mayor Roe suggested staff negotiating a short-term lease for the current License Center space, entering into a dialogue with that property owner to see if more long-term solutions were available, even an option that might involve them as partners in the process if they were interested.

 

Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee's comments that various City Councils had been talking about this for a number of years, in addition to the additional storage needs of the Public Works and Parks Departments.  Councilmember Willmus opined that it was time that we compiled more detailed information on parcels adjacent to the city campus seriously begin that conversation.

 

Without objection, the City Council agreed that part of that process would be to initiate appraisal information on adjacent properties as applicable for a better understanding.

 

Councilmember Laliberte suggested another part of the conversation, not specifically related to the License Center but also applicable, should be a solution to the city's current use of the former Fairview Fire Station for storage, and the potential to relocate that storage as a prelude to the potential sale of that site.  Councilmember Laliberte noted that the sale of the parcel could assist in the acquisition of property closer to the city campus.  Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff provide an update as part of this consideration as to what was being proposed for that site.

 

City Manager Trudgeon reported that staff had delayed further conversations on the former Fire Station site understanding that its future was ultimately tied into making other facility decisions.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the facility is fully used for city storage and hat of the Roseville Historical Society, and needed a solution.

 

Mayor Roe stated his appreciation for the reminder about the Historical Society needs in case a solution didn't work out with a future golf course clubhouse facility.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that displays by the Roseville Historical Society at City Hall was most appropriate.  However, Councilmember McGehee suggested storage for Park & Recreation equipment belonged somewhere more relative to park spaces to avoid hauling it around during off season, suggesting consideration may be given to storage as part of some of the new park buildings constructed or as additions to them as appropriate as should have been planned in the first place.

 

From a timing standpoint, Mayor Roe suggested, without objection from his colleagues, looking seriously at this facility issue in early 2017, especially given the need to extend the current lease term.

 

Specific to the leased facility, and involving the Public Works Maintenance Facility in the discussion, as well as continuing efforts to avoid thinking in a "silo" format, City Manager Trudgeon suggested starting initial discussion in December of this year, then in January of 2017 get appraisals updated.  However, Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to sort out and direct staff on the current short-term lease solution tonight

 

Lease-specific Discussion and Direction to Staff

For a lease term extension, Councilmember McGehee opined that the city couldn't make much progress on a new facility in less than  two years; and that one year would suffice to review the big picture, find property, and construct a building.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a minimum two-year lease.

 

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of a one-year lease with an annual option to renew.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in support of a minimum two-year lease, opining that not only finding a site, planning a building design, and then funding it, all while addressing different needs within the community could not be accomplished any sooner.

 

Finance Director Miller, from his perspective and in all reality, if the City Council directed staff tonight to pursue a new facility on an identified site, staff could not accomplish that in two years for planning, design and construction.  Mr. Miller opined that just the process itself and actual construction was staggering to consider in less than two years.  While appreciating the City Council's sensitivity to a shorter lease term providing more options, Mr. Miller also noted that the shorter lease term the less favorable options staff could negotiate with the current leaseholder.  Therefore, Mr. Miller stated he would strongly suggest that the City Council consider something slightly different than a one-year lease.

 

Adding to that timing scenario, Councilmember Laliberte noted that everyone was of mind in expressing dissatisfaction with the current condition of the License Center.  Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte opined that to just renew the lease and stay in the tight confines in the unwelcoming conditions at the Center was as equally undesirable.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested that whether or not the city was amenable to staying in those same circumstances or what improvements it would consider with a short-term lease renewal also needed to be part of this conversation.

 

Regarding the lease term, Councilmember Willmus stated he didn't have strong feelings, but if the city was serious about property acquisition, the lease term would become moot at some point.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he hoped that wouldn't be as long as three years from now.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her agreement, but noted the need to balance the additional space needed at the current leased space and potential acquisition of a new site.  Councilmember McGehee suggested that staff advise the City Council about what a two-year versus a three-year lease would lease and costs entailed.

 

Finance Director Miller noted the good relationship between the city and building owners at the current leased site, with that relationship continuing over the last sixteen years.  Mr. Miller clarified that while the relationship remained good between the parties and they continued to be willing to work with the city on a short-term solution, at the end of the day the property owner was also a business person, and if the city pursues extending their space further south in the facility, it would displace the current tenant, with the city potentially liable for those relocation costs for that tenant.  Mr. Miller also noted there is room on the property to expand the facility north, with the city currently occupying the end cap of the facility.  However, Mr. Miller also noted that the potential expansion on the north end had been marketed by the property owner for over fifteen years, without serious interest shown.  If the city was to consider an expansion to the north, Mr. Miller opined that he doubted the property owner would be interested in doing so for a two-year lease, since it would not provide them much incentive to speculate as to whether it could market the space to future tenants after the city's two-year lease terminated and they moved to another facility.   Therefore, Mr. Miller noted that the longer lease term, the more options and leverage staff could negotiate.

 

Finance Director Miller recommended a minimum three-year lease with an option to renew for an additional two years.  Mr. Miller opined that this provided the city with a short-term solution, while providing significant motivation to get a long-term solution done within three years, with the two-year option available to buy more time if and as needed.

 

Councilmember Willmus questioned if the timeline was being looked at properly; and if the focus is property acquisition, the build date was irrelevant.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated he wouldn't enter into a long-term lease if the City Council consensus was to pursue acquisition that should remain the focus.  Councilmember Willmus suggested serious consideration should be given to relocation expenses versus adding onto the existing infrastructure already in place at the leased License Center facility.

 

Mayor Roe agreed with the short-term nature of a lease, stated his interest in short-term leasehold improvements to address how to use the expanded space and process customers with better flow and as economically as possible.

 

Mayor Roe suggested that the direction to staff was for a shorter term lease, and to consider inexpensive leasehold improvements based on further discussion and decisions on how the city wanted to move long-term and going forward.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed, but noted the additional cost to buy out the lessee to the south and necessary agreement to do so by the property owner.  Councilmember McGehee stated she wasn't sure she agreed with Councilmember Willmus on his version of a short-term lease, opining it didn't allow sufficient time for the city to perform its due diligence to ensure all the cohesive pieces fit together, noting there were a number of moving parts and various complexities involved.  Councilmember McGehee with Finance Director Miller's suggestion that the city could get a better lease if it was for a longer term; and stated her preference not to be rushed in making this decision based on an unrealistic short-term lease.

 

Mayor Roe asked that staff return to the City Council with more information on the options noted in the RCA, along with numbers associated with them.  Mayor Roe clarified that this didn't mean an appraisal that need to be discussed in Closed Executive Session, but to just provide options versus stipulating only one path for staff direction at tonight's meeting.  Mayor Roe questioned if further discussion on this was feasible in December given other agenda items, but suggested that staff provide at a minimum numbers and lease costs, and leasehold costs involved, in order to make a more informed decision.

 

Councilmember Willmus clarified that he wasn't suggesting a short-term lease, but could agree to a two-year lease term, with his main concern being that the lease term should not run longer than the acquisition date for acquiring property.  If the City Council had no intention of agreeing on property acquisition within five years, Councilmember Willmus agreed that then by all means, staff should be directed to negotiate a five-year lease term.

 

Mayor Roe noted that his observation was that the remainder of the body was not considering a 4-5 year timeframe.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for a three year with two-year option; and Councilmember Etten stated his preference for a two- to three-year lease term.

 

If possible, Mayor Roe asked staff to bring this discussion forward, with options and associated numbers at the December meeting; with Councilmember Laliberte reminding staff to include other city needs already identified as part of that conversation.

 

b.            Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services

Public Works Director Marc Culver and Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson provided an update on negotiations since their last presentation and further direction from the City Council in October.  Mr. Culver noted this update was detailed in the RCA of today's date.

 

Mr. Culver reported on further discussions internally at Eureka and with city staff including floor prices related to revenue sharing and a termination clause.  The options presented through negotiations were compared to the original Eureka proposal and additional costs to the base rate higher than the 2016 base rate.  Representatives of Eureka were present in the audience for questions or comments at the discretion of the City Council.  Mr. Culver directed the City Council to the chart on page 3, line 45 of the RCA for a quick comparison of the proposed option compared to the existing Eureka agreement.  Mr. Culver also directed attention to revenue sharing results from the current three-year contract from 2014 through 2016.  Mr. Culver concluded his presentation by reviewing the risks with either option, seeking direction from the City Council for staff on either of two proposals as outlined.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver referenced a draft contract prepared for either option, with the original proposal represented in Attachment C and Option 2 provided in Attachment E.

 

Discussion ensued regarding current Recycling Fund reserves (estimated by staff at $90,000); total possible annual loss in revenue sharing, with 2015 used as an example showing an additional cost to the city would have been approximately $22,000; and the length of the contract proposed under Option 2.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for Option 1 or the original proposal, opining there was obviously some risk but based on the last five years' experience, it would balance out.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted where the disclaimer came into play, whether relying on past performance or not, stating his concern was with the length of the contract at five years versus the current three-year contract.  Councilmember Willmus noted his discomfort in not knowing the city's costs going forward and being able to fix those costs.  However, Councilmember Willmus noted that the Eureka proposal without revenue share was still under the proposals received from other firms responding.

 

Mr. Culver concurred, noting Attachment B provided those other prices for the same term, with the next lowest proposal at $3.62 per unit, still over $1.00 higher and not including revenue sharing in their models.  In his research of metropolitan peer communities, Mr. Culver opined that $2.56 per unit as proposed by Eureka was still a very good price.

 

At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Culver reviewed annual service costs shown on Attachment B under Options 2 and 2 based on last minute negotiations over the last few weeks, with some of those numbers continuing to fluctuate to a small degree.  Mr. Culver assured the City Council that those minor differences would be refined with final negotiations and adjusted accordingly in the final contract agreement.

 

While understanding Councilmember Willmus' concerns, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to finalize this contract, and wasn't sure an additional $40,000 cost to the city was called for to avoid the risk if the recycling market completely declined.  Councilmember McGehee referenced the good and fair relationship to-date between Eureka and the city; and expressed hope that the final details could be worked out accordingly.

 

At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to what other communities did in terms of revenue sharing, Mr. Culver reported that his research had found many still working on the older model with the floor.  Mr. Culver reported that the City of St. Paul had just recently negotiated a contract with Eureka without a floor.  Mr. Culver noted that the Walter's proposal did not have a floor either; and opined that this new model appeared to recognize the risk involved in the recycling commodity market in today's world.

 

Referencing Councilmember Etten's question related to impacts to utility rates for Roseville residential customers, Mr. Culver reported that his in-house discussions tonight indicated the need for further refinement in curbside recycling rates that will be presented later on tonight's agenda depending on the City Council's chosen option tonight.  If the City Council chose the no revenue sharing model, Mr. Culver advised that staff would recommend a $7/quarter fee versus the $6.50 quarterly fee proposed on the fee schedule at this time for 2017; both up from the current $5.60 quarterly fee.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver agreed that not all providers offered a revenue sharing option, and that given changes in the market, it appeared to be more the exception than the rule.

 

Councilmember Laliberte sought additional clarification on negotiations on a three- versus five-year contract term related to whether or not revenue sharing was an option. 

 

Mr. Culver reported that the original proposal was for a three-year term but prices were higher with the shorter term.  In response to Councilmember Willmus' point, Mr. Culver noted that the city had generally operated on a three-year cycle, but staff had recommended a five-year term based on previous City Council discussions and seeking a lower pricing model by setting the price for a longer term.

 

Further discussion ensued regarding pricing accuracy on the RCA and attachments; and relevancy of and comparables with the colored sections at the table on Exhibit D between three- and five-year terms. 

 

Option 2

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of a revised, no revenue sharing model, Agreement (Attachment D) for Comprehensive Recycling Services with Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling as presented.

 

Councilmember Willmus stated that it was important to note that a revenue sharing floor had been included in past contracts.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus reiterated his concern was with rates fifty cents per unit over the current contract, the city needed to be frugal based on what could be a downside in the commodities market.

 

Councilmember Laliberte admitted she saw benefits and drawbacks with either option; and while not being a fan of taking risks on behalf of the city, based on what she was seeing in the recovering commodities market, it could prove to work in the city's favor, but there was no guarantee at this point.

 

Councilmember Etten stated he could not support the motion, opining that a difference of $37,000 and $40,000 represented a significant amount of money over time.  While admitting there may be some losses in revenue sharing for the city in some years, Councilmember Etten noted the potential for the city to make money in other years as well, such as the unexpected revenue this year compared to 2015.

 

Even though not being much of a risk taker, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was inclined to take the risk in this case.  With a combined expense of $40,000 but potential of revenue of $20,000, Councilmember McGehee opined that, with the sufficient cushion in the Recycling Fund to cover short-term setbacks, she couldn't support this motion.

 

Mayor Roe stated that he understood risk avoidance, but based on a five-year contract term and worst case scenario projections versus annual costs, he opined there could be both negative and positive years.  While having supported the notion of getting rid of revenue sharing, Mayor Roe stated he was inclined, based on the additional information presented tonight to support not eliminating it completely at this time, and therefore would be voting in opposition to this motion at this time.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus.

Nays: Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Motion failed.

 

Option 1

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the original Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services (Attachment C) with Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling as presented.

 

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.  

Nays: Willmus.

Motion carried

Recess

Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:12 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:19 p.m.

         

c.            City Campus Solar Installation Project

Public Works Director Marc Culver provided an update on solar installation o the city campus, as detailed in the RCA and attachments.  Mr. Culver referenced a bench handout providing a short- and long-term comparison of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) rates, buyout and Xcel Energy rates for the City Hall and Public Works buildings.

 

Representing Sundial Solar, Mr. Culver introduced Mr. Art Kroll and Mr. Paul Christianson, both having worked with the city over the last eighteen months to develop this project.

 

With assistance as needed by Mr. Kroll, Mr. Culver provided a quick review of the proposal, and updates to consider these two buildings rather than the original proposal for the Skating Center roof due to the age and condition of the roof, and potential capital improvements intended before the solar project's investment end at twenty-five years.  Mr. Culver also noted that, during the detailed engineering of the Skating Center roof, it was found that the arena and roof supports and substructure would need shoring up to meet current building codes and support a solar array.  Mr. Culver noted this would also involve gaining access to the beams and over the ice surface, taking it out of commission for several months and during heavy usage months.  According to the current capital improvement program (CIP) schedule, Mr. Culver noted the roof would be considered for major rehabilitation five years from now.  Therefore, Mr. Culver reported that Sundial and staff had looked to other available roofs on the city campus, resulting in the new proposal for two smaller arrays on the newer roof portions of the City Hall/Fire Department and Public Works Maintenance facilities as shown on the display. 

 

Mr. Culver reviewed and defined what would be involved in the installation as detailed in the various draft attachments to the RCA.  Mr. Culver advised that staff and Sundial were seeking City Council action for a non-binding Letter of Intent as identified in the RCA based on the draft agreements; and emphasized that once final documents and engineering had been completed, the documents would return for approval by the City Council.

 

Discussion ensued regarding charts provided and displayed (Attachment D) provisions of the PPA and annual purchases and energy savings projected; initial investment and actual city costs; vested interests of the city and investor in keeping the system operational; and payoff term under a standard solar financing scenario.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted previous presentations and arrangements for a different program and shorter period of time.

 

Mr. Culver clarified that the city had applied for Made in Minnesota Grants for the last three years involving agreements with different solar developers who had submitted applications for the city, and if successful would have installed panels on roofs with the city receiving up to 40 K2H based on the grant provisions and an annual payment of $13,000 for ten years until the system had been paid in full.  However, Mr. Culver further clarified that the city would have no money invested in those systems, financed by a developer and reimbursed through grant awards.  Mr. Culver noted that only a small percentage of those applications are actually awarded; while this installation is financed independently, and not relying on a lottery or grant system. 

 

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Culver reviewed language in the second paragraph of the PPA with the Letter of Intent not binding, but was basically a mutual agreement for the city and Sundial to work together in good faith while Sundial puts more money into exploring the engineering of the system.  Councilmember Laliberte referenced earlier conversations tonight regarding a review of existing buildings on the city campus that might be repurposed; and questioned how that might impact this installation.

 

Mayor Roe noted the discussion involved the Public Works Maintenance facility, its repurposing and/or relocation, in addition to other pending City Council discussions.  Mayor Roe noted that he had wondered if the new Fire Station roof may make more sense as a better option for the city given those pending issues, and asked for staff's feedback on that.

 

Mr. Culver advised that the Fire Station roof had been reviewed and what could be installed, but noted that it would be a much smaller installation.  Even with an installation on the City Hall/Police Department and Public Works Maintenance facilities, Mr. Culver advised that those sizes of installations were considered "small potatoes" for Kenyon to work on; therefore, the attempt was to make the installation as large as possible.  Mr. Culver reported that the only reason the city was able have Kenyon consider this smaller project was that they were seeing it as an extension of a larger system in the area.  While it would not be impossible to bring the Fire Station into the equation, Mr. Culver noted it would change the economics.  While not having gotten into much detail at this point, Mr. Culver further reported that in initial discussions with City Manager Trudgeon, even if the existing Public Works Maintenance facility was repurposed and the maintenance function moved elsewhere, the shell of the building wouldn't change and simply involve walls and interior space reconfiguration and repurposing.  Without having talked to an architect on-site, Mr. Culver opined that adding a second floor to the Public Works Maintenance facility as it is designed would be difficult and expensive.

 

While agreeing that the Maintenance facility is basically a large garage, and also agreeing that it probably wasn't feasible to add a second floor, Mayor Roe noted one outcome of the pending facilities study may be that the shell of the building is no longer there; thus addressing the city's risk level.

 

Mr. Culver agreed that may be a possibility; but opined it would be more cost-effective to repurpose the existing building, after formal discussions with an architect about that feasibility.  Mr. Culver noted part of that could involve lowering the tall ceilings of installing a false ceiling lower and repurposing the open space into a License Center or some other use.  However, Mr. Culver noted the intent was that repurposing the building wasn't necessarily exclusive for installation of solar panels and keeping them operational for the twenty-five-year term of the installation.

 

At the notice of Councilmember McGehee and previous discussions earlier today, Mr. Culver advised that the preliminary financial analysis predictions of the twenty-five years of the long-term PPA program shown as $105,000 (RCA, page 2, line 39) was inaccurate, and was actually $242,000.

 

Councilmember McGehee further noted the exit clause detailed in line 98 of the RCA and the projected $242,000 didn't appeal to her; opining she liked the previous lottery program as a smaller experiment to begin with.

 

Mr. Culver apologized for not providing more detail for the city's risk in his presentation tonight, advising that after distribution of the meeting packets, city staff and Sundial representatives had a breakthrough in negotiations for that item, with an energy performance guarantee agreement with Sundial that would eliminate that risk factor with Xcel Energy rates that may fluctuate and be lower than the initial contractual energy purchase rates.  Mr. Culver noted this had been a concern he shared as well until these most recent negotiations.

 

Councilmember McGehee stated there were many things concerning her related to the city's potential risk.

 

Mr. Culver noted that, the only significant risk he saw to the city was if there was an unexpected but major maintenance on a roof with a solar array, if for more than 72-hour in a 60-day period, the city would be liable to pay the power provider for that lost power, since they were depending on that power production to help pay for the system and their financing of it.

 

At the prompting of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Culver addressed natural disasters (e.g. fire, storm, or collapse) if the system could not be salvaged or returned to that roof, noting the force Majeure clause (lines 100-104 of the RCA) that covered a longer period of time to restore operations, allowing that the power provider can abandon the system at which time the city would be stuck with it.  If it still works and can still generate power, Mr. Culver advised it would not be an issue, but otherwise the city would need to deal with the salvage and removal of the equipment from the site.

 

Councilmember Willmus opined that this was similar to his concerns with the Recycling contract and term.  When he considered the Made in Minnesota proposals, with a shorter horizon, Councilmember Willmus stated that he found those agreements more attractive.  Given the pending city campus discussions and related issues, Councilmember Willmus stated that he wasn't sure he was ready to proceed at this point with a Letter of Intent with Sundial Solar as presented.

 

Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, WITHHOLDING entering into a Letter of Intent with Sundial Solar for installation of a 450 kW Photovoltaic System proposed for the roofs of City Hall and the Maintenance Facility, until completion of the analysis of buildings on the city hall campus was completed.

 

Councilmember McGehee agreed that a variety of concerns for her included the duration of the agreement, ultimate payback for the city, disposal of panels should the city end up purchasing them and how to manage them, and other contract details as she had addressed to Mr. Culver earlier today and some tonight.  With so many questions still unanswered for her, Councilmember McGehee agreed with the delay until city campus discussions and facilities had been reviewed.

 

Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak.

 

Councilmember Etten asked if this motion pauses the process for possibly up to six months and no Letter of Intent was in place, would something similar be considered in the future or would the process need to start all over again.

 

Mr. Kroll responded that he thought the discussions could generally pick-up where it was currently, and even if Kenyon didn't share those sentiments, there were other investors willing to look at projects of this nature.  Mr. Kroll noted that economics continued to change with solar rates, resulting in the savings spread for the city being better or worse.  While those factors could change, Mr. Kroll advised that as far as Sundial's willingness to work with the City of Roseville, their interest would remain intact.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in opposition to the motion, opining he wasn't sure the existing buildings identified for these solar installations would be taken off line to the extent it would involve the solar panels.  Councilmember Etten further opined that if the city built additional facility space, he didn't see the city taking down existing buildings to construct new ones.  Therefore, Councilmember Etten stated his preference to move forward with this project that would provide some benefit to the city.

 

Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion to take a pause; along with fast tracking discussions on additional city needs first before making a decision on this project.

 

As stated, Mayor Roe recognized that the market place for solar continued to evolve; and whether six months or longer from now, there may be other factors in the marketplace that may or may not work to the city's benefit.  Therefore, Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion.

 

Councilmember Etten noted there may be fewer solar credits available at that time as well.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: Etten.

Motion carried.

 

d.            Consider Adopting the 2017 Utility Rate Adjustments

Finance Director Chris Miller provided a presentation that was complimentary to the detail provided in the RCA of today's date; along with the bench handout incorporated into the RCA, providing a projected analysis of the water, sanitary sewer and recycling utility funds and their current and proposed rate structures.

 

Finance Director Miller provided a rate overview, incorporating updated figures for the twenty-year CIP, and rate increases and/or decreases in each utility fund, along with including the net change as projected in Recycling Revenue Sharing under the recycling contract as approved earlier tonight.

 

Finance Director Miler advised that staff had prepared a draft resolution establishing the 2017 utility rates for City Council consideration tonight.  However, Mr. Miller suggested the resolution could await adoption at a future meeting.

 

On page 4 of the RCA, Councilmember Etten noted expenses for stormwater-related capital and "other services and charges," asking if that could be brought down further.

 

Based on Mr. Culver's comments earlier tonight, Finance Director Miller advised that was a possibility to shave off further money for the Stormwater Fund that hadn't been factored into the rates yet, but extracted during staff's rate analysis.  However, Mr. Miller noted this plan only occurs every ten years, and therefore was not considered part of the revenue stream.  Based on City Council direction for using reserves for one-time costs versus applying them to base rates, Mr. Miller advised this was the recommendation in this case.

 

Councilmember Etten noted comments he'd heard from residents and their frustrations in losing the senior discount, not based on federal income guidelines through Ramsey County records.  Councilmember Etten asked staff is there was any way to include more households or another barometer that could be used to tie a higher income threshold into that used by Ramsey County.

 

Finance Director Miller advised that, as of now, there were 3-4 programs tied to income at the 160% of federal income guidelines; with other energy companies offering financial assistance programs for residents as well.  Mr. Miller noted the city might have more local control with its rate structure, but if identifying the demographic group and requested financial relief, it would simply make the rate structure more favorable for another segment and less favorable for the remaining segments.  Mr. Miller stated the question for the City Council was where it wanted to provide the relief; and since the city doesn't verify incomes and relied on applications for other programs through Ramsey County, in order to revise the program or demographic, it would involve additional city administrative costs to implement.  Mr. Miller noted this was part of the discussion several years ago when the City Council changed the discount program from age to income verified.  Mr. Miller advised that one year ago, the city had nineteen households involved in the discount program, and now it had twenty-nine households.  Mr. Miller opined that he was confident there were more that qualified in Roseville, but for one reason or another, chose not to apply for reduced rates via an income verification process.

 

At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller clarified that the increase of 5.4% in the CIP was a result of updated assumptions and projections, including some not identified before.  Mr. Miller reported that each department had been challenged to seriously review those assumptions, which they had done, providing for a recalibration and more accuracy in the numbers, part of what was driving an increase in base fees for 2017.

 

Mayor Roe thanked staff for the bench handout providing the analysis of how rates were achieved, allowing him to see cost inputs and rate needs in various categories, along with the capital areas.  Mayor Roe encouraged staff to incorporate this information with the RCA on the website for public information, duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.

 

Councilmember McGehee referenced, and displayed, her previous calculations and considerations entitled, "Utility Rate Facts and Questions," attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Councilmember McGehee noted this involved her preference of a different funding structure for utility rates, opining the current system was unfair and impacts of the fee were burdensome for homeowners, especially those living in lower prices homes with the link to their home's value.  Councilmember McGehee suggested increasing the city's tax levy by 15% that would actually result in saving money for all single-family homeowners and in the long run make the system more equitable citywide.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the city could then pay for its fire station, parks public safety services, and infrastructure through that levy increase while providing utility rate relief to almost every homeowner in Roseville without reducing upkeep and maintenance on the city's infrastructure system.  Councilmember McGehee asked her colleagues to reconsider her proposal rather than continuing to penalize residents through its current utility fee and rate structure.

 

Mayor Roe opined this involved a philosophical decision as to how the city chose to pay for its infrastructure.  Mayor Roe stated a question he'd want to understand better was a correlation between a home's value and the ability to pay.  Under Councilmember McGehee's suggested revenue source, Mayor Roe noted that by basically using the property tax system, a resident was paying for water provision based on the value of their home through the tax system.  Mayor Roe stated his question was whether that made sense or not that may result in a higher rate based on that value than the current flat fee used.  Mayor Roe also noted the tax exempt properties that would no longer pay utility rates under Councilmember McGehee's proposal, and impacts for businesses that already pay significantly more in property taxes.

 

As suggested by Finance Director Miller, Councilmember Willmus suggested this 2017 utility rate proposal not be adopted tonight, but at the December 5, 2016 meeting to allow the community to review, digest and provide feedback on it.

 

Public Comment

Roger Hess, Jr. 1906 Wagner Place

Mr. Hess noted comparisons with other communities; but suggested a comparison if the City of St. Paul was to take over the Roseville water system, as it did for other suburbs.  Mr. Hess opined that there must be a reason they use that system, and asked staff to compare the current system versus St. Paul taking over the system.  Mr. Hess thanked Councilmember McGehee for out-of-the-box ideas brought forward for consideration.  Mr. Hess opined that it would be nice if other Councilmembers brought forward similar ideas for consideration.

 

15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

 

a.            Consider Changes to City Code, Chapter 314.05: the 2017 Fee Schedule

Finance Director Miller referenced an updated copy of the proposed 2017 Fee Schedule, provided as a bench handout and replacing the schedule included as an attachment to the RCA of today's date.  Mr. Miller noted the revised schedule included some fees inadvertently omitted in the previous draft, along with additional corrections upon further staff review.  Mr. Miller noted that most fees are grouped by department, and included more recommended changes this year given staff's detailed review line by line.  Mr. Miller advised that the fees were intended to be representative of actual city costs in providing a particular service.

 

Mayor Roe asked that staff go through the document with the items highlighted as new and/or revised fees.  Finance Director Miller deferred to Departments Head available and related rationale for the proposed fee changes.  Individual Councilmembers asked questions of Department Heads as applicable during the presentation.

 

Public Works Department (page 2)

Mr. Culver noted a new fee for curb stop turn-on/off fees, shown as a trip fee; estimating approximately 30-40 annually at this time, but unsure of how that may increase without an identified way to recoup city staff and equipment resources involved.

 

Mr. Culver noted this erosion control escrow fee had been brought to the City Council's attention earlier this fall for clarification, with staff putting numbers to ideas and establishing new thresholds involving the need for erosion control permits at an amount less than the current fee and involving smaller things in the city's shoreline district.  Mr. Culver advised the intent was to ensure that staff was able to monitor these areas without charging the full fee for residents and smaller projects and of less than one-quarter acre (e.g. minor grading, etc.).

 

Fire Department (page 3 & 4)

Fire Chief O'Neill addressed the increase in commercial vent hood inspections, stand-alone temporary fireworks sales, and inspections of underground fuel storage tank removals.  Chief O'Neill also noted a proposed increase in open burning permit fees and for the cost of required notices to area properties.

 

Public Works Department (page 4)

Mr. Culver addressed another earlier City Council discussion and new for private hydrant inspection costs depending on the number.

 

Community Development Department (page 5)

Community Development Director Collins advised that some of these fees were a result of many changes within the department as work flow was tracked more accurately with the integration of the new Accela software program. 

 

Ms. Collins addressed an additional fee for rentals failing to submit renewals within 60-days of expiration of the current registrations.  Ms. Collins advised that this was inadvertently omitted in previous fee scheduled.  Ms. Collins also noted the addition of a late renewal fee for rental registrations.  Building Codes Coordinator Dave Englund confirmed that this was a follow-up defined on new rental license application forms.

 

Public Works Department (page 5)

Mr. Culver addressed a new fee for stormwater impact fees, also discussed by the City Council earlier this year; and adjustments for street patching based on actual costs.

 

Mr. Culver further addressed new sump pump waiver fees and monthly surcharge fees. 

 

Mr. Culver advised that the sump pump waiver and surcharge fees were intended to allow the city enforcement capabilities under current city code to encourage property owners to separate their direct discharges of sump pumps into the sanitary sewer system to avoid the city being charged by the Metropolitan Council for treating that water.  Mr. Culver noted the waiver would apply if disconnecting the sump pump would result in safety or property issues, and allow a property owner temporary reprieve to discharge into the sanitary sewer system until the problem had been resolved.  Mr. Culver clarified that this would involve a one-year annual renewal.

 

Regarding the new stormwater impact fee, Councilmember Laliberte asked if that one-time fee of $22.50 would be sufficient.  Mr. Culver stated that remained an unknown until put into play and after a year's experience.

 

Community Development Department (page 5)

Ms. Collins reviewed the current 2% technology fee applied, and the new fee for the building permit technology fee on the Planning Division side.  Ms. Collins noted that this fee is essentially embedded into current fees, but the Accela software calculated it as a separate fee based on valuations and were incorporated into building permit feet.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins advised that it was difficult to project the revenue at this point other than based on past numbers of building permits issued and their valuation.  Ms. Collins noted that, when staff had initially proposed the Accela program, the cost of the software had been programmed into fees to offset the cost of the program, along with implementation and maintenance of the software built into 2017 fees.  Ms. Collins advised that staff would review the numbers after the first year using the new software program and make adjustments accordingly.  At the further request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Collins advised that the 2% technology fee had been used in the past with previous permit software, and was typical of most other communities. 

 

On page 7, Councilmember Willmus noted a reduction in administrative fines for city code and property use violations, with Ms. Collins advising that this was an effort by staff to clarify the two and distinguish them from another for easier tracking.  City Manager Trudgeon noted that the Nuisance Fee was listed elsewhere at $100.00.

 

Fire Chief O'Neill reviewed building permit and plan review fees (page 10) for new construction and existing building remodels.  While these inspections had been performed in the past, Chief O'Neill noted they had not been identified as a cost of doing business, and now were mirrored after the building department's valuation, typically involving smaller jobs however.  Chief O'Neill noted that most renovations were under $20,000 in value, and therefore while attempting to keep the fees small, the department was seeking to break even at a $93/hour fee.  If the inspections involved re-inspections, Chief O'Neill admitted these fees would come nowhere near covering expenses or breaking even.  However, Chief O'Neill opined that this will take the steps necessary to get closer to the staff resources required.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked if both commercial and residential inspections were lumped together.

 

Chief O'Neill clarified that the department typically didn't perform residential inspections unless installing a sprinkler system; and would typically review building permit data and conduct a plan review, with those costs currently included in residential building permit fees.

 

If the plan review fee is 65% of the commercial permit fee, Councilmember McGehee asked if there was a cap, noting $93/hour didn't allow very long for review versus the time for a more complex plan and related review. 

 

Chief O'Neill responded that staff didn't foresee extensive fees, since most plans are pretty straight forward, and the average existing permit pulled took about one hour.

 

Building Permit and Plan Review Fees (continued - page 12)

Ms. Collins addressed new fees for residential driveway permits and expansions, and shed permits.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Collins and Mr. Englund clarified that a residential driveway permit was $55, but expansion was set at $75 as more staff time was required to review impervious calculations.

 

Councilmember Willmus suggested looking at the area being expanded and how to base the fee depending on the actual square footage of the expansion to justify the cost of the fee for that expansion.

 

After a brief discussion, staff was directed by the City Council to review and clarify language for better public understanding of whether or not driveways were included as part of an overall building permit for a new home.  Ms. Collins duly noted these requests.

 

Councilmember McGehee thanked staff for reducing the fee for backflow preventers to encourage people to have them installed.

 

(Page 14)

Ms. Collins noted the new fee for Certificates of Occupancy, noting it took staff time to process and prepare them. 

 

After a brief discussion, staff clarified that they include the fee as part of a building permit application, but list it as part of that itemization of administrative costs involved.

 

Ms. Collins noted the new parking lot repair fee was to address staff time involved in reviewing the plan and reviewing impervious area.

 

Community Development Department Misc. Fees (Page 15)

Ms. Collins reviewed the new landscape improvement permit fee for staff's review of impervious coverage on a site seeking improvement on residential lots (e.g. patios, accessory structures, etc.).  Ms. Collins noted that many of these things appear on lots without a building permit being pulled or staff's knowledge, but sometimes significantly increasing impervious coverage on a site and impacting those parcels and adjacent policies, as was recently realized with a land use application on Gluek Lane.

 

Councilmember Willmus asked staff to clarify a minimum type of project, with Ms. Collins advising the intent could be addressing the addition of patios on smaller lots, forcing staff to look at the percentage of existing impervious surface coverage.

 

Mayor Roe noted it would be essentially a hardscape or impervious surface improvement permit.

 

Councilmember McGehee spoke in favor of that, opining that erosion problems are one of the biggest problems in the community due to increasing impervious surfaces, even though there are regulations in place, no one seems to adhere to them.

 

The other new fees, including Planned Unit Developments, and Public Assistance fees for applications and escrow, Ms. Collins noted were previously reviewed and approved by the City Council based on the newly adopted Public Assistance Policy.

 

Mayor Roe asked that staff clarify and consider a name other than "public assistance" to avoid misunderstandings by the public based on other connotations of the term.

 

Specific to the Public Assistance application fee set at $1,500, City Attorney Gaughan suggested staff denote that as the initial or minimum amount for escrow versus giving the impression it was capped at that amount.  Mr. Gaughan noted this would allow for additional funds should a project prove highly complex and allow the escrow account to city to replenished.

 

Ms. Collins agreed that should apply to any escrow account, and if addressed here it should be done consistently throughout.

 

Mr. Culver noted that the existing footnote D in the Subdivision area indicated that and could be extended to include public assistance applications accordingly; with Ms. Collins duly noting that suggestion.

 

Landscape Plan Escrow (page 16)

Ms. Collins clarified that staff estimated the escrow amount needed for "landscape plans" based on the scale of a project and to incorporated the time for the arborist to review tree preservation and restoration plans as applicable.

 

Park Dedication Fees (Page 4)

Parks & Recreation Director Brokke advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission had closely tracked this over the last fifteen years, and based on that data was recommending the increase in residential fees, and increase for non-residential fees as noted.   Mr. Brokke advised that this was done largely because of its correlation of the quality of the park system, past and future substantial investments made to the system, and future investments identified in the CIP yet to be done.  Mr. Brokke opined that this provided another funding resource for the system, with residents consistently indicating their interest in maintaining a high quality park system.  Mr. Brokke advised these fees were being recommended using comparative data in terms of other communities and was consistent, as noted in the matrix displayed of those comparisons by city for residential and commercial park dedication fees in 2015 and in 2016 to-date, averaging $3,900 per unit for residential properties.

 

Councilmember McGehee noted some of the commercial properties having a considerable portion of their site as a parking lot, very low in terms of cost and assessed value, but at the same price per acre based on the proposed percentages.  Councilmember McGehee asked how staff figured in that trade-off.

 

Mr. Brokke advised that it proved more financially positive for Roseville to use the percentage route.

 

Mayor Roe noted it was interesting to see the various and different approaches used among other cities.

 

As with the proposed 2017 utility fees, Mayor Roe asked that residents and individual Councilmembers provide any questions and their feedback to staff between now and the December 5, 2016 meeting at which time those schedules will be considered for adoption.

 

Motion to Extend Meeting Curfew

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, to extend the meeting curfew to complete item 15b.

 

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

b.            Water Supply Plan

Mr. Culver introduced Roseville Civil Engineer Luke Sandstrom who presented a brief review summarizing the Local Water Supply Plan Template - Third Generation for 2016 - 2018 (Attachment A).  Mr. Sandstrom advised that the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) had seen the same presentation at their meeting for their feedback.

 

Mr. Sandstrom provided a background of the plan done every ten years, and outlined the three parts of the plan: inventory, emergency planning, and water conservation.  Mr. Sandstrom advised that tonight's presentation and discussion would focus on water conservation, as per recent adoption of a state statute mandating it.

 

Mr. Sandstrom's presentation included those items being mandated, and those items already being done by the City of Roseville, including a tiered and seasonal rate structure, CIP, system improvements and stormwater re-use projects, and remote read meters.

 

After this same presentation, Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the recommendations made by the PWETC, including: continue the annual CIP; identify all unmetered city- owned facilities and install meters; install smart irrigation meters at city-owned facilities as a pilot program and subsequent results; educate the public on water conservation options; and pursue grant funding for rebate programs.

 

Mr. Culver asked the City Council for their additional input on what to include in the Water Plan for conservation-related efforts; and what the city was willing to commit to as the Plan goes out for agency review by year-end.

 

Regarding smart irrigation, Mayor Roe asked if the Park Renewal Program irrigation systems were installed as smart systems as part of that effort.

 

Mr. Culver responded that he wasn't sure, other than for the Upper Villa Park improvements with that stormwater management system based on weather forecasts and would pump out storage capacity to make itself ready for an upcoming storm.  Mr. Culver further noted that there were some sensors and a wireless system controlled from City Hall based on weather and other steps with the purpose to reduce total water usages.

 

Mayor Roe noted it was nice to see some credits already applied for Roseville efforts to-date.

 

Councilmember McGehee opined that the city could improve its tiered rates system; and suggested offering the public some rebates for low flow toilets or energy efficient appliances given the broad selection available and as utilized by other communities.  Councilmember McGehee suggested advertising such rebates should be part of the broader education program to show how much a household could save.

 

Mayor Roe noted some communities were funding these rebates through grant programs.

 

Mr. Sandstrom noted the Metropolitan Council had awarded grants, using Clean Water Funds, to nineteen communities, which they had used to fund those rebate programs.  Mr. Sandstrom opined that the city may be able to apply for funds in the fall of 2017 during the next grant cycle.

 

Councilmember Etten spoke in favor of pursuing grant applications as appropriate; opining that many efforts are outdoor-related and reimbursed by other agencies.  Using lawn watering as an example, Councilmember Etten suggested encouraging residents to install smart irrigation systems or turf reduction programs, perhaps by offering an incentive program through education and resulting in a huge impact.  Councilmember Etten suggested concentrating on outdoor water usage where the greatest amount seemed to be used in the community.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in pursuing a water use restriction ordinance, noting the need to educate the public on the best time of day for irrigating to avoid excessive water loss in the afternoon; and to address those times of great drought in the community.

 

Mr. Culver noted a lot of communities have ongoing odd/even regulations and others that kick in when water demand is high or during extended drought periods. While odd/even regulations don't necessarily conserve water, Mr. Culver advised that it did allow a city to have a ready supply of water by reducing peaks and spreading it out for maximum demands.

 

Mayor Roe suggested looking at an irrigation-based surcharge based on usage comparisons if exceeding a certain amount depending on how it was calculated.  If a significant increase in usage was seen over the average for irrigation purposes, Mayor Roe suggested a financial penalty be applied.  Also, Mayor Roe suggested addressing usage on the commercial side beyond meter sizes; and perhaps not encouraging high commercial water uses to develop in the community, or at least not incentivize them. 

 

Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to take this additional City Council feedback to the PWETC for their further vetting and discussion.

 

Councilmember McGehee reported anecdotally on her experience with rain barrels and heavy rainfalls this year; and her favorable impression with how easy they were to use and their efficiencies.

 

Mayor Roe noted there were products available to meter rain barrels to control when to release stored water or for a drip irrigation system at lower pressures.

 

At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver reported that the city did not currently have a separate irrigation meter in most city facilities.  If residential and commercial irrigation systems were on a separate meter, Mr. Culver advised that the city could charge a higher rate for those irrigation purposes only.  At the further request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Culver advised that there was a code application for new systems accordingly, with residential applications needing city code revisions beyond the current base fee per meter.

 

Councilmember Laliberte opined that education, education, education should be the focus as it was the easiest and least expensive thing to do.  While recognizing the things Roseville was already doing as noted in staff's presentation, Councilmember Laliberte opined that more could be done.

 

Councilmember McGehee suggested encouraging the public to use less grass, and more shrubs or mulch versus the typical lawn.

 

Councilmember noted the report provided a list of top commercial water users in Roseville or on the Roseville system.

 

Mr. Culver noted there were several Maplewood commercial users on the Roseville water system, as the City of Maplewood had no water main along Rice Street, with all east side properties on Rice Street getting their water form Roseville.

 

Councilmember Etten noted that Walmart was shown as #7 in the list of high users at 8 million gallons, while the much larger Rosedale Center complex using 13.6 million gallons. Given the considerable difference in size of the two properties, Councilmember Etten asked why there wasn't more of a differential in their water usage.

 

Discussion ensued as to how much was associated with the outside sprinkler system; suggestions for the Department of Natural Resources or Department of Health to audit Roseville businesses and their water usage to help them not only save water but also money for the benefit of the city and the business.

 

Councilmember Willmus noted the Walmart parking lot was the first commercial property required to include green areas in their parking lot; opining that the sea of asphalt surrounding those areas and the intense heat radiating from them may impact the amount of water required to keep them green.

 

Since that outside irrigation system was already on a separate meter, Mayor Roe suggested a smart irrigation system might be a good fit for them.

 

16.        City Manager Future Agenda Review

 

17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

 

18.        Adjourn Meeting

Etten moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:18 p.m.

            Roll Call

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

Nays: None.