View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version


City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

May 15, 2017


1.            Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 5:30 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.  City Manager Trudgeon was present with Councilmember Willmus arriving at approximately 5:42 p.m.; and City Attorney Mark Gaughan present for the business portion of the meeting.


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

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


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment


5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


6.            Items Removed from Consent Agenda


7.            Business Items


a.            Interview Commission Applicants – Planning Commission (1 Vacancy)

Councilmembers conducted interviews of those applicants in attendance: Larry Ragland, Joseph Ayers-Johnson and Jumi Kassim; with regular business items taken in the interim between candidates as time allowed.


b.            Review Ramsey County’s 2018 Assessed Market Value Report

As detailed in the staff report, Finance Director Chris Miller provided updated information, noting that over the last eight months, there had been a 5.13% increase in Roseville’s overall market value (tax base).  Mr. Miller also noted median-valued, single-family homes were projected to increase 4.3% in value as well.  



Mayor Roe noted that as the city’s overall tax base grew as a whole, it translated to a broader way to divide the city levy, when median property values  are growing at a rate less than that overall tax base, creating less of an impact to those median properties’ taxes.  However, Mayor Roe cautioned that individual properties could experience changes in property tax depending on their specific circumstances and beyond those generalities for 13,000 plus parcels making up that picture in Roseville.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the city has little control in that differential between residential and commercial properties.


Finance Director Miller responded that over the last 30-40 years, the housing and commercial/retail markets had reacted differently and with the shifts both ways, they tended to even out over time.


In this year, Mayor Roe noted that the shift tended toward the commercial property values.


For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe noted that this report was available on the Ramsey County Assessor’s website.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller advised that historically the city hadn’t provided a link on the city’s website to this information, but offered to consider doing so.


8.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated May 15, 2017.


a.            Approve Youth Commissioner to Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission (HRIEC)

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, appointment of Elizabeth Hansel to serve as a Youth Commissioner to the HRIEC until the expiration of her term on July 31, 2017.


Councilmember Willmus noted that, from time to time, conversations were held regarding youth commissioners serving on them and whether there was a need for cursory background checks for adults serving on those commissions with them.  Councilmember Willmus noted this service frequently involved service in settings and situations outside the control reviews of the city that could have potential issues when putting minors in contact with adults. 


City Manager Trudgeon noted that this was an excellent point and well taken, since there are currently no background checks being done, even though this was a standard practice for other organizations with youth commissioners (e.g. athletic organizations), and opined that it should be done in the city as well.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he and City Attorney Gaughan would consult on a draft polity and changes to forms as applicable for commissions working with youth to provide for background checks of those adults.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that the city needed to take this seriously, and assured the City Council that staff was fully supportive of doing so.


Councilmember Willmus specified that he was looking for any flags germane to an adult’s work with youth, not speeding tickets. Etc.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of this as a great idea.


Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of this appointment, but noted when this group meets later this week they will discuss posting of youth vacancies for the next school year.  Under those circumstances, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the City Council wanted to pause that process to put this policy in place.


Mayor Roe noted that other youth commissioners were already serving; and would be implemented for those coming on at a later date.


Mayor Roe advised that he had reached out to the other Human Rights Youth Commissioner, Gabe Cedarberg, for similar appointment to this commission, but had received no response and took that to mean he wasn’t interested in serving in that capacity until the end of his HRC term on July 31 since he was moving on to post-secondary education opportunities.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Resolution Opposing Small Cell Legislation for the Use of Public Rights-of-Way

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11419 (Attachment A) entitled, “Regulation Opposing the Proposed Legislation Regarding Unregulated Access to Public Rights-of-Way for Installation of Small Cell Wireless Equipment and Antenna Systems;” directing staff to forward the resolution to local representatives and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) to add the City of Roseville’s support to this opposition.


Councilmember Laliberte sought the plan of action to communicate this resolution of opposition to legislators.


While this legislation remained a moving target, City Manager Trudgeon advised that the intent was to alert committee chairs and the Governor’s office.  Since there were a number of cities passing similar resolutions, Mr. Trudgeon opined that it shouldn’t be a surprise when they also hear Roseville’s voice of opposition.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


7.            Business Items (continued)


c.            Receive 2018 – 2037 Capital improvement Plan (CIP)

Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the 2918 budget process timeline, including tonight’s scheduled presentation of the 2918-2037 CIP update.


Councilmember McGehee thanked staff for preparing this information, opining that tonight’s packet was the best yet received, especially the individual department detail, making the budget process much more transparent.


Finance Director Miller thanked Councilmember McGehee for recognizing that extra effort as staff continues to be more responsive to the needs of the public, City Council, working in conjunction with the Finance Commission’s advisory support.  Mr. Miller noted that the goal was to provide sufficient information for good decision-making, and asked for additional feedback and comments to continue making the process better.


Finance Director Miller provided a brief overview of the details contained in the Request for Council Action (RCA) of today’s date and attachments, including highlighted areas needing the City Council’s attention, both property tax supported and fee-supported funds.  Mr. Miller focused on five specific areas as follows:

§  CIP summary (page 2, line 37) and available funds to cover those capital needs based on current funding (page 3, lines 44 – 51);

§  Analysis of tax-supported asset replacement funds highlighting three funds and their status requiring more discussion (page 3, line 54 – page 5, line 20);

§  Analysis of fee-supported asset replacement funds highlighting four funds and their status requiring more discussion (page 6, line 123 – 143 for communications, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and golf course);

§  Funding strategies (page 7-8, line 144 – page 8, line 199); and

§  Property tax impacts (page 9, line 207 – page 10, line 220).


Councilmember Willmus requested additional information of dollar deficit in addition to percentage projections for 5, 10 and 20 years out.  Finance Director Miller noted that the 2018 – 2019 plans laid that information out for City Council consideration in addressing those deficits, but would also be coming back with additional information as requested, for City Council attention.


Funding Strategies and Impacts

Finance Director Miller noted the four staff recommendations (line 166 – 196) based on the more detailed information and going forward.


In terms of the $160,000 tax levy increase recommendation, Councilmember McGehee asked about the type of impact that would create.  Finance Director Miller advised that such a small increase could be absorbed without much notice  by homeowners, even though it would increase the levy and be in conjunction with other levy needs also coming before the City Council for consideration.


Mayor Roe noted that such an increase would represent approximately a 1% increase from the current levy, and possibly even less when combined with other considerations.


When looking at potential funding sources and keeping healthy fund balances beyond the policy target of each, Councilmember Willmus sought further discussion by Finance Director Miller related to potential strategies to reallocate dollars from one fund to another.


Finance Director Miller noted that this was a possibility at the City Council’s discretion for any repurposing or reallocating of funds, but cautioned that there were trade-offs in taking that step.  Mr. Miller noted that, at least for the 5, 10 and 20 year CIP, it would look more problematic, but on a conceptual level, agreed with Councilmember Willmus’ potential strategy.


From another perspective, Mayor Roe asked for additional information from staff by running projections from various funds if current balance funds were reallocated in 2018, and whether or not those funds would remain healthy for the 20 year long-term picture or whether reallocation in 2018 would end up with the funds looking better from that same long-term view; or how viable such reallocation was in solving issues in the short- and long-terms.


Councilmember Willmus opined that by carrying it over for five years, it could potentially put a dent in the long-term picture.


Finance Director Miller expressed appreciation for this discussion early-on in the process; but also asked the City Council to provide staff with any long-term levy targets moving forward to inform staff as they prepare their recommended budget.


Councilmember Willmus stated that, as staff carried forward additional analyses and the bigger picture was known as to reallocation of funds in dollar format would look, then he would consider himself in a better position to provide a target levy.


Mayor Roe noted that all available funding didn’t need to be reallocated in 2018.


Finance Director Miller clarified that staff was looking for City Council feedback on any or all of the four funding recommendations for implementation going forward, with built-in assumptions and inflationary impacts.  However, if they were approved, Mr. Miller noted that they did represent a future City Council decision with tax levy increases and therefore, making them unable to provide as much property tax relief as they may prefer and creating difficult decisions for the City Council over the next few years.


Property Tax Impact (page 9, line 207 – page 10, line )

At the conclusion of his presentation, Finance Director Miller advised that Department Heads were available in the audience to respond to more detailed questions of information needs of the City Council, with tonight’s presentation designed to provide more information for the five-year CIP term.  Mr. Miller asked that the City Council seek answers to any immediate questions or policy direction to staff at this point in the budget and CIP process.


City Council Discussion

Specific to levy thoughts, Councilmember McGehee reiterated her past preference against a flat utility fee across the board.  Councilmember McGehee opined that it would make it more fair, and further opined that the current utility rate structure did not provide an equitable situation for meeting CIP needs and was onerous to some residents less able to pay current and projected increased rates.


Finance Director Miller clarified that Councilmember McGehee was advocating for a shift cost from base fees to usage fees.


Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation for the manner in which this year’s CIP information was packaged – both short-and long term views, as previously requested by Councilmember McGehee when suggesting a 5-year CIP view.


Councilmember Etten also expressed appreciation for the information provided and the work of departments in preparing it, providing residents and the City Council with a better understanding.  However, Councilmember Etten noted that particularly the item by item descriptions by department were not always consistent and easy to follow from one department to the other (e.g. vehicle replacement) and asked that staff provide that more in-depth information by department and fleshed out consistently.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten’s suggestion, noting that it created a huge learning curve in deciphering the information and in being able to ask questions.


Mayor Roe referenced the various graphs provided by staff incorporating those revised funding solutions as staff recommended, and spoke to the General Facilities Replacement Fund specifically (page 8).  Mayor Roe noted problem years (e.g. 2023, 2031 and 2032) with replacement of rooftop HVAC units; asking that the particular facilities be provided as part of the detail for additional information.  Mayor Roe asked that staff provide that detail via a follow-up memorandum not currently provided in this report.  Further, Mayor Roe noted that in 2023, the graph runs negative again, and asked for additional information on what created that, whether it was condition-related or whether staff could address how analyses and impacts would determine whether replacement to a different year would impact the CIP, especially with replacement of rooftop HVAC units in 2023.


In the Parks Improvement Fund graph (page 9), with proposed changes, Mayor Roe noted that it still looked better, with the exception of larger peaks in 2019 (courts, gyms and playgrounds) and in 2023 (Lexington Park restrooms and Central Park Lexington marquee sign).  Once again, Mayor Roe asked that staff look closer at those two specific years and peaks, and if they could recommend things that could be done to help that situation. 


Mayor Roe noted that there may be other situations for staff to address as well, but those two had come to his attention.


With the 2020 end date for the levy for City Hall and Public Works bonds, Mayor Roe asked Finance Director Miller to clarify the remaining amount; with Mr. Miller responding that the refinanced amount remaining was approximately $765,000.  As an exercise if that entire amount was applied in 2020, Mayor Roe asked what that did to that particular graph.


2018 Project/Initiative Summary Narratives (Attachment A)

Mayor Roe Mayor Roe asked about the fuel tank replacement (page 30) and suggested further analysis by staff not on the expenditure itself, but at the yard, efficiencies of the operation in light of the recent space study; and whether if replacement of those tanks in the same location was the best solution or whether consideration of relocating them would help with site efficiencies.


Specific to the sanitary sewer vehicle – 1-ton flat bed crane used for equipment and pump replacement as needed (page 48), Mayor Roe asked staff for further analysis on the frequency of use and whether or not it made sense to rent versus buying the equipment.


Public Works Director Marc Culver responded that staff would further analyze this equipment, especially since it isn’t used every day; however, Mr. Culver also noted that it wasn’t something staff could access and rent when needed for an emergency situation at 3:00 a.m., but instead served as a $40,000 insurance policy for the city.


In response to the fuel tank, since this report was prepared, Mr. Culver advised that staff had assessed the fuel tank for corrosion or other issues, and had determined that they will push off its replacement for a few more years in the CIP than as currently projected.  At this time, Mr. Culver advised that staff was still considering replacement, with the pumps and island remaining.  While the tanks are underground, Mr. Culver advised that their locations could be reviewed, but with the pumps and overhead canopy not scheduled as part of that replacement, relocating the tanks may not provide any cost-savings overall.


Councilmember McGehee asked about the booster station rehabilitation (page 46), some of which is not included in the CIP.  Councilmember McGehee stated that she was a proponent of finding out project details to determine whether or not doing part of a job to make it look nice, but not supporting the full project now to avoid additional costs if the job isn’t done right or completed correctly the first time, might result in additional costs at a later time.


Mr. Culver reported that, based on the current consultant contract as approved, it included phasing of projects, but offered to further analyze any cost savings as suggested.  Mr. Culver advised that his primary concern was with the aging back-up generator that may require more extensive updating, which would then determine phasing and staging accordingly to make sense of the project.  Mr. Culver reported that the city would be spending the majority of the money in the next two years, because it was vital to do so, emphasizing the importance of the booster station in the delivery of water to the city.


Councilmember McGehee noted a number of items at the new Fire Station (e.g. new chairs and kitchen countertop) and questioned why replacement was required so soon or if they were inexpensive to begin with or not being cared for properly.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that this was a live and learn situation and confirmed that the original items were not of the highest quality when installed.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, while this building was used 24/7 and took considerable wear and tear, the items and materials chosen should have provided more longevity for the amount of use they had experienced.  However, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he had looked at the items and agreed that they were in need of replacement.


Councilmember McGehee noted that she had numerous questions on new expenditures shown for the Fire Station gym as well, and while understanding that they were necessary for training and exercise purposes, questioned these expenditures compared to the same type of area used by the Police Department.  Councilmember McGehee also questioned if the two departments could share one gym.


City Manager Trudgeon again confirmed that these items were critical for the performance and long-term health of firefighters, having the room and equipment available to them 24/7 allowed training at any time of the day or night as their schedules allowed and as they were available.  At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon recognized the need for durable item given its extensive use in the Fire Station to avoid frequent replacement.


Of all the items detailed in lines 40-50, Mayor Roe noted that only one represented ongoing operating cost, and that was the image trend integration equipment that added an additional $1,500 annually to operating costs.  Mayor Roe thanked staff for including that good information and that level of detail.


While not having reviewed too much of the more detailed information at this point, Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff look at equipment not used on a regular basis to determine if other opportunities were available to share with other entities or through public/private partnerships that could still be at the ready and possible for cost-sharing.


City Manager Trudgeon concurred, and clarified that staff performed those cost-share opportunities as much as possible, but often the necessary equipment may not be available for immediate use if and when needed.  However, Mr. Trudgeon agreed to keep that suggestion in mind.


As per his previous discussions with City Manager Trudgeon, Mayor Roe noted his appreciation of the plus/minus comparison information for 2018, noting that this also shifted things in later years for the 20-year CIP picture as well.  Therefore, Mayor Roe asked staff to prepare a 1-2 page summary of major changes resulting over that long-term picture as decisions are made to shift capital items, especially those larger ticket items beyond the 5 year picture.


As noted by Finance Director Miller, City Manager Trudgeon asked the City Council for any additional guidance, particularly staff’s funding recommendations, as the budget process moves forward and whether or not those four items were within the City Council’s comfort parameters or if individual council members had different thoughts.


Councilmember McGehee stated her comfort level with staff’s recommendations.


At this stage, Councilmember Laliberte stated her comfort with the recommendations.  However, with recommendation #4 (OVAL improvements), Councilmember Laliberte noted the dependence on legislative representation; and suggested staff update and begin telling the facility’s regional draw rather than relying on past presentations and information.


Mayor Roe agreed that staff should prepare to start that process as soon as possible, especially for the city’s legislative delegation.


In terms of resilience, Councilmember McGehee agreed that regional support from the legislature was necessary to avoid big changes to the facility and its operations without that support.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that both he and Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke had already initiated informal discussions with state representatives, and had participated in webinars about the legislative process itself.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was looking harder at the equipment and its useful life in order to create narratives for additional conversations.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the need to gear up for the right timing cycle for bonding years with that narrative and why the OVAL was important to the region.  As the process moves forward, Mr. Trudgeon noted that it would involve a group effort, including involvement of the City Council.


Councilmember Laliberte echoed Mayor Roe’s comments; noting the need to start sooner rather than later.


d.            Consider License Center Proposed Lease Terms and Expansion Option

As detailed in the RCA, Finance Director Miller provided a brief summary and City Council decisions to discontinue efforts to secure a new site to address License Center space needs as well as those of other city functions.  Mr. Miller noted that License Center staff was also present to answer any questions.


As noted in the RCA, Mr. Miller reported on negotiations with the current landlord for a long-term lease resulting in the culmination of those discussions as outlined for a 5 year lease (page 1) and subsequent negotiations with two options available (page 2) for existing space and for an approximately 1,600 square foot addition (Option 2).  Mr. Miller noted the increased lease amount, reflective of new market realities based on similar properties owned by the landlord.


Finance Director Miller reviewed financial impacts for the city for both options, as well as referencing recent tours of the License Center by council members to observe impacts for the passport and license functions and their separation as mandated.  Mr. Miller noted the frequent long lines experienced by customers, many of whom chose to leave and go elsewhere representing a negative customer service experience that they would remember, as well as a loss of revenue for this city function.  Mr. Miller asked that the City Council authorize staff to explore the additional space option to return customer service levels back to where they used to be and to serve customers more effectively and further expand those services.


Whether the City Council chose to retain the existing space or to allow for expansion, Mr. Miller noted the outdated and no-longer-functional aspects of numerous capital items as outlined on page 2, lines 45-58.  Mr. Miller also addressed increased business volumes and revenues even with limited space and amenities.  However, Mr. Miller noted the longevity and commitment of staff at the License Center who were ultimately responsible for continuing to make this a revenue-positive function of the city and take advantage of opportunities.  Mr. Miller sought the City Council’s guidance on the lease option to pursue and their support for expanding the space and/or undertaking capital improvements.


Councilmember Willmus referenced a presentation by License Center staff last year providing a breakdown of revenue for corporate customers (auto dealers) versus walk-in customers; and asked if that picture had changed at all.


Finance Director Miller advised that the two areas continued to strengthen and with additional space, the city would be positioned to grow even more, both with passports and auto dealer work.  However, Mr. Miller advised that staff was currently limited in their ability to recruit any new auto dealers without additional space and staffing, even though those corporate customers were the money-makers compared to everyday walk-in traffic.


Councilmember Willmus asked Mr. Miller to address how he envisioned allocating the proposed $250,000 investment of the License Center.


At this point, Mr. Miller advised that if the City Council authorized expanding the space, the first priority would be the passport service counter in order to address privacy and accommodate more than two customers at once.  With an L-shaped counter, Mr. Miller stated that he saw that service capacity double to 4-5 customers at once.  Of next highest priority, Mr. Miller advised that would involve finding a way for dedicated staff to serve auto dealers that would allow more auto dealers to be served when customer service was improved. 


On the motor vehicle side, Mr. Miller advised that customer service privacy is not being addressed at this time, either at the customer service counter or for the flow of customers.  Specific to service counters, Mr. Miller noted the need to better segregate those services requiring more time from those shorter transactions (e.g. license tabs versus drivers license renewals) to avoid choke points due to the current actually physical layout.  While expansion and/or redefining the space could be done on parallel tracks, Mr. Miller also noted the need to remain mindful of customer disruptions so as not to lose any more customers.


Councilmember Willmus asked where things were at with potential relocation of the existing tenant in the space identified for expansion.

Mr. Miller reported that the tenant in that space was aware of the city’s interest in the space as it evolved during acquisition discussions.  While the existing tenant had rights even with a month to month lease, Mr. Miller advised that he was not prepared at this point to define the city’s exposure without further discussion with City Manager Trudgeon and the city’s real estate consultant.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that he and Finance Director Miller had spoken with the landlord and everyone was aware that once the lease was set to be executed, it would effectuate changes, including improvements for the lease space that would require city participation as well as legal obligations for the city. While that cost remains only a guess at this point, Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would expect more refined information and dollars as part of identified capital costs moving forward.


As a follow-up to an earlier comment made by Finance Director Miller, Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification about if and when additional staff had been added to address projected auto dealer business growth.


Finance Director Miller clarified that additional staff and auto dealer services had been added, but that growth had a ceiling, creating the current dilemma that there was no space available to add another body or work station to handle any additional workload or to bring in more revenue.  Mr. Miller further clarified that the physical space limitations involved that additional work station, as typically auto dealers dropped off a mass of work at once, or staff may pick up or drop off that work at their place of business to further accommodate them, depending on the situation.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she was impressed with how well the License Center was run over the last few years and Finance Director Miller’s vision and guidance in doing so.  From her personal perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated that she’d like to receive additional information and costs for expansion and relocation of the existing tenant, but recognizing that the License Center Fund had sufficient funds for the improvements and enough reserve remaining after the remodel, she considered it a safe bet that it would improve customer service and flow.  Councilmember McGehee opined that as staff worked in the space, they would best understand the flow and knew what was needed to get the job done right.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this was a good opportunity and further opined that the city was fortunate to be able to remain in the same location that customers had come to expect.


Councilmember Etten spoke in support of Option 2, and expressed his appreciation of the work done by staff; opining that all residents and customers to the License Center knew that more space was needed.  Councilmember Etten sought clarification from Finance Director Miller on whether the $250,000 potential investment included relocation costs for the existing tenant.


Finance Director Miller reiterated that his estimate was broad, but suggested relocation costs may be separate to and in addition to those costs.  Mr. Miller clarified that the direction staff was seeking from the City Council was how much of an investment they were interested in authorizing.  Mr. Miller noted that a space needs analysis had been done, but not any architectural or interior design estimated, as staff considered that premature at this point until having this conversation.  Mr. Miller advised that the License Center had approximately $1 million in reserve, so the $250,000 expenditure should go a long way, and may end up less than that estimate, given the amount of value-engineering that could be done between now and then.


Councilmember Etten noted that the operating surplus from the License Center had been used by the city for the last few years to reduce the General levy, and asked Finance Director Miller if and how this would affect that ability.


Finance Director Miller advised that he was sensitive to that situation, and with $300,000 in surplus revenue taken annually over the last few years to support other city services/programs, he recognized the potential to cut into that amount of surplus annual given the double lease amounts over a period of time.  However, Mr. Miller stated that he was hopeful that revenue growth would more than accommodate that increased expense, but would be assessed over the next few years in reality.  Mr. Miller noted that any significant revenue gains would probably remain stagnant for the next few years in the short-term until the new business model is implemented.  Mr. Miller noted the importance of improved space for customers and the frustration for License Center staff to watch lines going out the door for those customers waiting for a passport, and with money ready to be spent but frequently seeing those customers walk away due to the poor customer service and/or long wait lines.


License Center Supervisor Pam Ryan reported that, as part of the Deputy Registrar Association, she was very aware of the Real ID situation with a lobbyist continually watching legislative discussions and actions.  If and when Real ID happened, Ms. Ryan assured council members and the public that the Roseville License Center was ready to do staff training for this potentially longer drivers license transaction.


If additional space is made available and space reconfigured, Councilmember Laliberte asked Ms. Ryan if staff would be prepared for that additional increased burden for both passport and drivers license functions as of January 1, 2018; with Ms. Ryan responding affirmatively.


Finance Director Miller reported on and reviewed the results of further discussions he and City Manager Trudgeon had with Gaughan (landlord) on the timing of space renovations including relocation of the existing tenant into another open space in the mall; and timing for the city to complete specifications and secure the additional 1600 square feet by hiring additional professional services for those drawings.  Mr. Miller reiterated that staff was awaiting City Council direction before moving forward.


With Councilmembers noting several issues involving the physical property itself, Finance Director Miller noted that staff had already alerted Gaughan of expectations for improvements with some already planned for the facility, including parking lot improvements and exterior branding for Roseville and the License Center itself to receive distinction from other leased space at the mall.


Ms. Ryan further noted the importance for that distinction for License Center staff to be recognized as city employees by the public.


Councilmember Laliberte noted the need for the License Center’s interior space to also reflect that City of Roseville branding immediately noticeable by customers (e.g. decal on the back wall to identify Roseville) and to avoid taping notices all over the facility.


Finance Director Miller advised that staff had already had internal discussions about the appearance of the interior, and about the possibility of identifiable clothing for staff at the License Center for immediate recognition by customers.


Based on conversations to-date, Councilmember Willmus offered his support of securing the lease and looking hard at additional space.


Councilmember McGehee offered her support of moving forward at this time.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to finalize lease negotiations with Gaughan enter into a lease under Option 2 with the additional square footage as detailed by staff in the RCA of today’s date.


Mayor Roe clarified, with confirmation by City Manager Trudgeon, that upon approval of this motion, the next steps would be for staff to seek and bring back information to proceed with specifications for design work from an architectural firm for City Council approval of final design.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that bids would be sought for the actual construction work itself; estimating that staff would return in June for additional discussions based on tonight’s action.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:47 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 7:55 p.m.

e.            Review and Provide Comment on the Last Chapter of a Comprehensive Technical Update to the Requirements and Procedures for Processing Subdivision Proposals as Regulated in City Code, Title 11 (Subdivisions) (PROJ-0042)

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief summary of tonight’s requested discussion as a precursor to continuation of this subdivision review from the previous City Council meeting.


Councilmember McGehee opined that the City Council should give careful consideration to several areas (e.g. street section) and attempt to make this code easier to understand by including diagrams showing rights-of-way and curbs as simple illustrations rather than eliminating that detail from city code and also removing the ability for the general public beyond designers and planners to fully understand city code.


Councilmember Willmus asked at what point the Public Works Department would ensure that the Design Standards Manual was completed and available for use.


Mr. Lloyd advised that the manual was being continually updated as changes or new recommendations were received from the Planning Commission and City Council and evaluated collaboratively throughout this entire review process.


Councilmember McGehee opined that it was disheartening to reference the manual without it yet being available.


RCA Exhibit C (continued)

Page 1, Section 182 (Chapter 1103.01: Street Plan)

Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for including current language back into proposed language to provide a broad statement of intent for this section.


Mayor Roe sought feedback from staff as to their rationale in revised versus current language.


Mr. Lloyd advised that a considerable number of those elements (e.g. reasonable traffic circulation, new streets and their context, etc.) were addressed in the Transportation Plan as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan Update; with the idea to more succinctly summarize them and let those goals guide this as well.


While that may be all well and good, Councilmember McGehee stated that there was nothing left in the subdivision code to allow enforcement of findings when needed.


Mayor Roe stated that he tended to concur with Councilmember McGehee that more specificity may not be a bad thing.


Councilmember Etten agreed that more specificity may be indicated, but sought confirmation of staff’s acknowledgement that a lot of this is brought up in the comprehensive plan.


Mayor Roe noted that with the comprehensive plan update still in process, there was no guarantee what would end up in the revised transportation plan.


Laliberte agreed, noting that it hadn’t been revisited in a while, and by simply referencing those documents that could be in need of an update, she wasn’t sure there was a process in place to make sure they’re relevant at all times they were being relied upon.


When speaking of the Pathway Master Plan, Councilmember Willmus sought clarification as to which variation was being referenced, noting that the most recent plan from his recollection had some rather interesting dynamics when last discussed.


Mayor Roe questioned if that document had actually been adopted by the City Council, opining that the original 2008 Pathway Master Plan remained in effect.


Mr. Lloyd confirmed that, noting that it was included in the transportation plan process for updating at this time.


Councilmember Etten opined that this section wasn’t easy to understand in the current language while the new language seemed to do so; and suggested that the language of the current code in its entirety wasn’t necessary to carry over, but some of the items could be included to make the revised language more clear.


Mayor Roe suggested a hybrid, and used examples to include from current code, and without objection, staff was so directed.


Pages 1 – 4, Sections 184 – 202 (1103.02: Streets)

In these various sections, Mr. Lloyd advised that the effort was being sought to make this more consistently address rights-of-way from the street.


Mayor Roe agreed with that intent, noting that what was being platted for subdivisions was for rights-of-way and not streets.


Councilmember McGehee suggested including something in the definition section to ensure that anyone reading city code could easily determine what a particular street was.


Mayor Roe noted that there are some industry known terms, and therefore wasn’t sure how they needed to be defined in city code, even in the definition chapter.


Mr. Lloyd advised that the rationale in leaning toward more technical terms is to avoid any confusion, since many state and county roads or at least segments of them had been turned back to the city and therefore.


Public Works Director Marc Culver responded that each of those street definitions were clearly defined in the transportation plan; and in an effort to be efficient and not duplicate definitions in numerous places, staff had chosen well-known definitions in the plan, as indicated in Mayor Roe’s comments.


Councilmember McGehee agreed to their use in the manual, provided illustrations were included.


Mr. Culver agreed that the Public Works Design Standards Manual could be enhanced with illustrations as much as possible.


Councilmember Laliberte asked Mr. Culver the expected process for adoption of that manual as part of this subdivision code revision by the City Council or if it would simply be amended and revised by staff.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the continued reference to and emphasize on a document that may not have the same approval process for this and future City Councils.


From his perspective, Mr. Culver advised that the intent was to remove the specifics from city code to allow for more easy revision from the formal city code ordinance adoption.  Mr. Culver clarified that this was not to say if there were more relevant items of concern, they would not come back to the City Council for review and action; but at a minimum, any proposed changes would be filtered through the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC).  Mr. Culver noted that some of the elements were often of such miniscule detail (e.g. pipe materials and/or sizes) that they had little to do with a developer’s perspective of a new development beyond the actual cost for them.  Mr. Culver advised that many of those standards are already used that are not currently in the existing subdivision code.


Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council was seeking assurance that from a general perspective applicable things be taken into account in the subdivision code and clearly stated.  However, Mayor Roe noted that those specifics as to how they’re put in place or best management practices or specifications in doing so made more sense in the design manual with the code itself stating what was not wanted to occur and addressed more generally with the finer points made in the manual.  As a council member, Mayor Roe stated that he didn’t necessarily need to approve the design manual and periodic minor revisions to it.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe’s comments, but clarified that she wanted to ensure that so much was not being removed from city code that it bypassed an expected process.


Mayor Roe referenced this discussion to clarify that.


Councilmember Willmus opined that as for the design manual, most things were already included (e.g. road specifications as to types of grades and asphalt types, compaction testing, etc.) and what he considered applicable for the manual, while the higher level aesthetic view of a street something he’d seek to remain in city code.


Mr. Culver reviewed several examples on pages 2-3, including several sections being deleted (e.g. Section 195 – 197) that were found redundant with other language or no belonging in city code if and when they were a design standard element.  Mr. Culver clarified that, once this was more finalized based on feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council and weekly review by the Planning and Public Works Departments cooperatively, the subdivision code and design manual would both be updated and once more solidified.  At that point, Mr. Culver advised that the design manual would be brought forward to the City Council not necessarily for their formal action, but for information purposes.


Councilmember McGehee agreed that the more of this went into the design manual the better from a technical perspective.


Mr. Culver advised that staff would anticipate and continue to lead developers of a subdivision to review both the city code and design manual as part of their application; with staff intent on balancing both between technicalities versus general information.  In that aspect, Mr. Culver opined that tonight’s City Council direction was helpful beyond staff’s perspective of what was too detailed for city code and should be moved to the manual and vice versa.


City Attorney Gaughan suggested that another way to think in terms of balance was that this was a subdivision code involving divisions of land, with the necessary elements of city code intended to address geometric configurations of those lots from a subdivision application, where the radius of a turnaround may be applicable in city code, as an example, while the actual composition of that turnaround was more technical and should be addressed in the design manual.


Mr. Culver concurred, noting that the concept was being considered as to at what point the city felt strongly enough that it would require a variance rather than simply negotiating with staff on certain aspects, with those items clearly identified as requirements in city code and not up for negotiation.


Councilmember McGehee questioned how meaningful functional classifications would be if not illustrated sufficiently. If something is mandatory, however, whether highly technical or not, shouldn’t it be included in city code?


Councilmember Etten opined that it would become more meaningful at the point when the developer hires an engineer to plat it out.  While the City Council won’t build the road, Councilmember Etten opined that city code required teeth for a process in place for any variances.  While recognizing tonight’s discussion, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of staff’s intent to leave specifics out of city code for that purpose.


Councilmember Willmus stated his complete agreement of what Public Works Director Culver was speaking to for those things when provided for in ordinance no longer subject to administrative negotiation, but considered a standard and expectation of what a developer brought forward on site plans, surveys, and/or plats.  Councilmember Willmus agreed that those auxiliary items provided for in the manual that didn’t rise to that level and including some discretion, were more appropriate to the design manual versus those required as mandates in city code.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for this discussion and clarifications by staff and City Attorney Gaughan.


Specific to alleys (Section 200) no longer being permitted, Councilmember Etten asked if there were not some existing areas in Roseville with alleys and if they were or were not included in city code.


Mr. Culver responded that there were a few areas that shared private driveways, but whether they were legally-defined alleys was a good question.  However, at this point going forward (new versus existing), Mr. Culver suggested that the focus be on whether or not alleys should be considered for any future subdivisions or developments.


Mr. Lloyd reminded council members that this subdivision addressed rights-of-way so existing things in older parts of town would involve platted alley rights-or-way or something similar; but stated that he was not aware of any actual alleys.


Mr. Culver confirmed Mr. Lloyd’s interpretation.


Going forward, Mr. Lloyd suggested that developments may include private drives that functioned as alleys, but would not be regulated as rights-of-way.


Page 4, Section 204 (Chapter 1103.021: Minimum roadway Standards)

As an example in this section, Councilmember Willmus referenced the private road near Slumberland and Olive Garden that served as a private drive off East Snelling Service Drive and asked how that was distinguished in conjunction with the Planning Commission recommendation on bike lanes; or in similar situations where a private drive may provide access to 3-4 homes built to city standard and including a bike lane.


Mr. Lloyd opined that the comment was intended in the context of streets in general rather than specifically in the context of private drives.


Mayor Roe noted that this section states city “and” private roadways and therefore refers to both.


Councilmember Willmus opined that there should be some level of distinction and purpose outlined for private roadways and/or drives to avoid  significant loss of front yards to provide a bike lane that may only service two homes.


From a technical standpoint, Mayor Roe asked why this referred to existing private roadways when the subdivision code by its very nature involved new construction and didn’t address standards for reconstruction of roadways.


Mr. Lloyd advised that it related indirectly to Sections 205 – 208 when addressing street width, not rights-of-way for parking arrangements, but minimum road widths in various situations that would remain relevant.  As an example, Mr. Lloyd referred to a development application for subdivision made several years ago where new lots would be created along a street with no on-street parking and the nearest available parking would be a block or more away.  Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that this revised language provided a developer with the expectation of street width to ensure new property owners and visitors would have adequate parking.


Mayor Roe opined that he still didn’t consider reference to existing streets and situations to be applicable in the subdivision code, nor “reconstruction of existing streets” unless this is the only location in city code that they exist (e.g. design manual) and asked that staff reconsider that when platting new land that was not part of this subdivision code and if and where it needed to be addressed.


Councilmember Etten agreed with this discussion, noting that he had also been confused with the reconstruction aspect.


Generally speaking, Mr. Lloyd advised that when talking about a physical street width rather than the importance of rights-of-way, that was the question rather than how and why it was addressed in code; and advised that he and Mr. Culver would discuss that further.


Mr. Culver noted that this came into play in several potential situations: when a business reconstructs its parking lot to a certain percentage if not meeting current standards it would now be required to do so; and the same could be said for existing private streets not meeting current standards for parking and minimum width.  As it applies specifically to the subdivision code, Mr. Culver advised that if one side of a street has yet to be developed, when a development proposal came forward to do so, an existing street situation may be found substandard to meet the needs of more development in that area.


Mayor Roe opined that there needed to be more clarity if that was the intent; whether or not “existing streets” were addressed in the subdivision code versus design standards.


In his reading of subdivision code, City Attorney Gaughan opined that it specifically included redevelopment in an area with existing streets.  However, Mr. Gaughan agreed that it didn’t make sense to use “existing” when discussing reconstruction, and therefore suggested removing “existing” and leaving in language “as constructed or reconstructed.”


Mayor Roe further suggested adding “as part of a subdivision” to the language as well.


Page 5, Sections 214-215

Councilmember McGehee asked for a better understanding of those areas proposed to be deleted in the new subdivision code.


Mr. Lloyd referenced Mr. Culver’s previous comments that the current code language deviated from current design standards, therefore setting up the city for negotiation and an approval process.  Mr. Lloyd advised that the suggestion was to remove that making it become grounds for a formal variance process rather than negotiated as part of that process.


Councilmember McGehee stated her preference to retain it to allow developers to come forward with more interesting ideas that, which while they may be a variation, would not eliminate their possibility and serve as an option to consider beyond strict requirements.


Mayor Roe agreed to not having it allowed in code for negotiation, but allowing developers who want to show some creative in their proposal, to then seek a variance.


Mr. Culver clarified that at this point the only areas of discussion involved cul-de-sacs and rights-of-way widths.


Page 6, Sections 218 and 220 (Chapter 1103.03: Easements)

Discussion ensued regarding the width for standard utility easements (6’ on each lot for a total of 12’); with more clarity sought for easements between lots and those typically built in street rights-of-way, as well as clarifying “not all pathways.”


Mr. Culver clarified that a dedicated pathway right-of-way or easement could be through the center of a parcel, but the city would want to retain 20’ for an 8-12’ wide pathway and space on either side for its construction, grading and maintenance; while 12’ centered is intended for drainage and utility easements on side lots.


Page 7, Section 227

Mayor Roe suggested adding “railroads” consistent with its reference with limited access highways or marginal access rights-of-way and their screening.


Page 8, Section 230

Mayor Roe noted that minimum rear yard width of 30’ had  previously been included, and was proposed to be removed, seeking rationale in doing so since it had come up in several recent subdivision proposals.


Mr. Lloyd responded that this was consistent with Section 231 and other areas addressing lot sizes, proposed to be relocated to the zoning code as most had already been, consistent with this proposed removal from the subdivision code. 


Section 231

Mr. Lloyd opined that while this has not been an issue to-date, and since there appeared to be no huge demand for them, suggested that “butt lots platted 5’ wider than average interior lots” no longer be included here or in the zoning code.


Section 238

Councilmember McGehee suggested a “period” after “residential development;” opining that if this is intended as a technical document, it seemed unnecessarily aspirational.


Councilmember Etten agreed with the attempt to guide lots when possible by allowing for that potential guidance as long as the subdivision code remains an outline and doesn’t get into too much specificity.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte agreed, asking that it stay in; and without objection staff was so directed to retain existing language.


Page 9-10, Section 244

Specific to flag lots, discussion ensued at the prompting of Councilmember Willmus as to the intent in removing the second half of the sentence: “…not permitted.”


Mr. Lloyd advised that this, as well as the previous discussion with Section 238, was simply intended to simplify language as recommended by the consultants, to address conforming width along the front as being the area of most concern.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he hated to prohibit large rectangular lots that may conform to required width but if recombining lots may create an L-shaped lot or two lots.  As long as they met proper frontage at the street, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of allowing them.


Mr. Lloyd displayed an illustration of two lots and potential combinations; and after further discussion, suggested that be addressed in city code as it had been provided in existing code to get to that point.


Mayor Roe suggested that another way to get beyond flag lot language would be to say, “… as long as both lots of any subdivision meet standards,” noting that the code already didn’t  permit front lots less than 85’ in width whether or not the lots were wider at the rear.


Mr. Lloyd advised that consideration would be given to rewording or eliminating that section (flag lots), noting that the language had been added back to the subdivision code last summer to address lot size and shape parameters replacing provisions that at that time were considered too simple and not clear as to whether flag lots fell into those parameter or not.


Page 10

In Section 246, as pointed out by Councilmember Etten, Mr. Lloyd advised that this section required more review and consideration for higher classification and functionality for placement of driveway access on one street compared to another with higher function.


In Section 247, Mayor Roe questioned if the reference to screening should be included in the subdivision code.


Mr. Lloyd thanked Mayor Roe for spotting that issue, noting that this needed further staff review as well to address instances where a lot with streets in front and back required latitude depending on varying lot depths, or how many instances remained where they needed to be addressed.


Mayor Roe suggested it may refer to “through lots” not being permitted where access was not allowed from both but only from one street or the other. However, Mayor Roe noted there may be topography issues of a lot that may indicate a variance situation (e.g. County Road B). Mayor Roe suggested that whether or not this was a subdivision issue needed further staff review.


Pages 10-11

Mayor Roe noted that new language in Section 249 stating “… conforming to Title 10 of this code” seemed obvious and suggested instead saying, “…while conforming…”


In Section 251, Mayor Roe suggested further review of that language as well; and suggested that this should perhaps be relocated after Item A on page 8, Line A addressing lots for single-family detached residents and the infamous irregular shaped lots to allow for easier tracking.


Pages 11-13, Sections 252 – 259, (1103-07: Park Dedication)

In Section 253, Councilmember Willmus noted reference to state statute and asked if proposed language mirrored that state statute.


Mr. Lloyd advised that it did mirror state statute language directly; noting that staff had included the statute (Attachment E) in packet materials for reference.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he didn’t want to see this used as it had been in the past as a point of negotiation to secure a potential development of some type.  Councilmember Willmus further stated that he wanted to make sure the determination of how dollars or land determinations were made was done so with input from the Parks & Recreation Commission and considered unique to each potential subdivision that may come along.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated his concern with trying to simplify language without addressing those issues or to create a situation for a potential developer using construction of a pathway around their development as their solution to meet park dedication requirements.


Mr. Lloyd noted that the language still clearly states that the choice would be at the City Council’s discretion, as recommended by the Planning Commission versus “city.”


Mayor Roe stated that he didn’t see the risk here.


Councilmember Etten stated that part of his concern was whether a developer may decide on what their park dedication consisted of; and whether non-single-family residents may be required to put it in anyway.  As a part of this discussion with other advisory commissions and staff, Councilmember Etten asked if the Pathway Master Plan and pathway connectivity be included by reference beyond state statute (e.g. Exhibit E. Item G) currently changed to “park system plan” related to new land in general.  While supportive of referencing the comprehensive plan, Councilmember Etten opined that when you say “Pathway Master Plan” you moved away from that intent when the intent was for park use and funds for sidewalk connections that may not necessarily be the intent of the state statute referencing park planning and moving in another direction that he would not necessarily be comfortable with.


City Attorney Gaughan directed the City Council’s attention to Subd. 2b of particular attention to Exhibit E, parends b.  While he hadn’t researched parks and open space plan or pathway language completely at this point, Mr. Gaughan clarified that was the authority allowing the city to pursue park dedication.  Therefore, Mr. Gaughan advised that the intent was that the city wanted to review those plans and language of the comprehensive plan in addressing parks and open space that would be a component of and referenced in this and other city ordinances.  As noted, while he had not yet personally reviewed those documents, Mr. Gaughan advised that he would do so, based on his understanding that the city had to-date been operating from that interpretation.


In terms of the Master Plan and Park/Open Space Plan, Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke advised that there was a section in the comprehensive plan addressing parks/open space as referenced, with the goals and policies of that section included there and also in the Parks Master Plan.  As the comprehensive plan update process moves forward, Mr. Brokke advised that those goals and policies would be connected.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that state statute referenced a city’s comprehensive plan, and the park/open space component; and suggested that this presented a good opportunity to review those particular sections of those referenced documents.  As to whether that reference included the transportation section versus another section as noted by Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan suggested that reference in code should mirror that of state statute for “Park and Open Space Plan.”


Mayor Roe asked if this addressed Councilmember Willmus’ and Etten’s concerns.


Councilmember Willmus stated that it did in part; but his concern remained as to whether park dedication money would be used by a developer to complete a sidewalk section along a roadway or corridor and if so whether that then became Roseville property or if city dollars were being expended for potential corridor improvements for city collection of dedication fees on roadways not belong to the city (e.g. county roads).


Mayor Roe noted that this was a current practice.


Councilmember Etten questioned if that concern actually fell into state statute territory and how those dollars were collected.


City Manager Trudgeon referenced the last comprehensive plan update performed in 2009 that referenced the Pathway Master Plan that had been in progress at that time; and included in the Parks and Open Space chapter of the comprehensive plan as previously referenced by Mr. Brokke.


City Attorney Gaughan suggested that it was important to note that the city had a plan in place and that dedication dollars should be used to complete that portion of the plan.  If another project that is not part of that plan gets into a grey area and whether or not it was an appropriate use of those monies, Mr. Gaughan noted that it was important to keep in mind what current documents say as to the appropriate use under the current plan.


Councilmember Etten stated his thoughts to pull language out for sidewalks, since this caused him concern that it would become a hole for money to go versus potential park use that had been the intent of state statute when referring to park plans, not Section B indicating that a capital improvement budget must be adopted or comments on in the comprehensive plan.  With the 2009 trail map having gone through several discussions and updated, Councilmember Etten stated his concern that by referencing it in the comprehensive plan, it quickly became dated and may open up problematic doors when addressing park dollars and current needs, opining that it wasn’t germane to park dedication statutes.


Councilmember McGehee questioned how Councilmember Etten could consider pathways and trails around and throughout the city not to be germane to parks.  She emphasized the desire of residents to have increased connectivity as  to a subdivision adjacent to an area needing improved connectivity; and part of the transportation and recreation plans and needs.


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that connectivity is a city priority; but if not included in this subdivision code rewrite, asked if there was actually anything requiring this section to be updated from current language.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she found it to be an attempt to fix something that wasn’t broken and over-prescribing this section versus other sections by bulking this section up.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she’d be concerned with any future development planning to provide that connectivity and using this section to cover two things with one effort.  However, if the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission are already working together to connect any gaps, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there was no need for the level of change proposed in the new rewrite.


Mayor Roe stated that this got to his point that a lot of times developments plan for a pathway along one or more streets that they pay for but the city gets the reward of since it was located in city rights-of-way.  Mayor Roe stated that his only concern was that those may be used to offset park dedications; and if language could be developed similar to that current language to address technical issues and not trade-offs as a credit for the park dedication wanted by the city, then he offered his support for reverting back to the original language.


As noted in the RCA (page 1, section d), Mr. Lloyd advised that when a proposal came forward for a trail or open space, it was considered available to the public as a requirement by the city to consider it part of the park dedication component whether calculated as land or cash.


Mayor Roe stated that was what he would argue against, but mandated in statute.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that this was not the case, and that the city could refer to their plan; with the statute simply stating that the city would give consideration to the fact the applicant proposes to do something on private property, with the state statute not mandating but simply asking the city to take that “into consideration.”


Mayor Roe stated that he read that as a financial consideration, with City Attorney Gaughan advising that was not his reading.


Mr. Lloyd agreed with City Attorney Gaughan that it was at the city’s discretion whether or not to accept a developer component as part of the park dedication requirement.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that statute addressed that a subdivision application could not be held up if there was a dispute over park dedication, and since this may speak to that point, if an applicant disputes the city’s position on dedication of an amount or other issue, the city couldn’t hold up approval of the application but could proceed with a subsequent dispute resolution process.  Mr. Gaughan advised that the city was mandated to provide due consideration to that part of the proposal in arriving at an appropriate city decision.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she felt protected given the state statute and legal counsel’s statements tonight in that the city would retain discretion as part of the negotiation with a developer.  Since she didn’t think anything better could be written that would be more direct than current language, Councilmember McGehee opined that current language should be retained as it provided authority for the city to make decisions as it had done in the past, with consistency but perhaps allowing for some flexibility in addressing connectivity issues.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would lean toward retaining current language, perhaps with some tweaks to make it clearer and more functional.  If the desire was to hold the city accountable with how those funds are used in filling and/or improving connectivity, Councilmember Laliberte suggested a City Council policy for consideration outside this code and as mandated by state statute.


Councilmember Etten stated that he was in agreement with the majority of Councilmember Laliberte’s comments, with current code referencing the process with the Parks & Recreation Commission’s recommendations to City Council.  Councilmember Etten expressed concern with proposed language focusing on state statute by expanding definitions.  While supporting connectivity, Councilmember Etten expressed concern that as soon as those funds moved outside existing park space or for expanding that park/open space, the money could disappear and not meet other needs in the parks in addition to the millions of dollars needed for pathway extensions and connectivity.


Mayor Roe clarified that he was not suggesting that money from park dedication funds be used exclusively for pathways, but simply that building pathways was an important component of a subdivision project in lieu of or as part of land or dollars related to that subdivision.  Mayor Roe clarified that it was not the intent to use the park dedication fund to fund numerous pathways.


Councilmember Willmus offered his agreement with Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten, in that existing language was preferable.  While realizing the intent of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Willmus noted that a future body may look at something differently, and therefore, preferred the current language over that proposed.


Mayor Roe stated that he supported that also; and with the consensus being to use current language in the rewrite, pending legal tweaks, to direct staff to use current language over that proposed.


In Section 255, Mayor Roe asked that staff reconsider the sentence structure construction.


Mr. Lloyd addressed Section 255, as addressed in the RCA (line 94) specific to non-residential language that he found problematic in current language and expectations for residential and commercial zoned designations and expectations whether similar or distinct.


Discussion ensued, resulting in staff directed to review and consider new language for Sections 255, 256 and 257, with current language retained for Sections 253 and 254; with specifics addressed in the annually reviewed fee schedule.


City Attorney Gaughan noted the need to base these figures and calculations on state law; with the city reasonably determining that a portion of the land is necessary based on a particular application, and arrived at with the same level of methodology, perhaps relating to differences in residential and commercial zoning designations.


While that may be a perception, Councilmember Willmus referenced Langton Lake as an example of commercial development but that park heavily used by those working in businesses during their lunch breaks, referring back to the intent of the Parks Master Plan as well.


City Attorney Gaughan duly noted those variables, but cautioned the City Council to keep it in mind.


Mayor Roe suggested that the inconsistency between land and cash was currently notable and needed to be addressed better in residential areas.


Councilmember Etten referenced the RCA (page 3) with the land option unchanged since its creation in 1989 while cash fees have increased several times during that same period.  Therefore, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of bringing it up to 10% for residential as with the cash amount.


If potential land changes were proposed, Councilmember Laliberte asked that staff and the Parks & Recreation Commission bring back recommendations for the fee schedule.


In Sections 253-254 (pages 11-12), City Manager asked for clarification about the one acre threshold.


Mr. Lloyd addressed the relevant section in Section 254 in proposed language stating “net increase of development sites comprising more than one acre of land.”


City Manager Trudgeon noted how that had been interpreted and applied in the past and distinctions if smaller lots (under 1 acre) are then not required to pay park dedication.


Mayor Roe interpreted this to mean before the overall site was subdivided; with Councilmember Willmus interpreting it to mean for those parcels in excess of one acre.


City Attorney Gaughan reviewed actual existing code language to clarify interpretations: “…when a new building site is created in excess in excess of one acre,” indicating the net area.


Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was for it to be the same but simply further clarified with new language intended to provide consistency with how it had been applied over the last years when a subdivision results in net area and not simply addressing lots refigured.


Councilmember Etten noted that there was nothing in state statute referring to one acre and why that was being used as a threshold.


With minor subdivisions, Councilmember Willmus expressed his concern that developers and/or property owners not be required to seek additional financing to make their proposal work due to park dedication requirements.


Mayor Roe noted discussions at the last meeting defining what qualified as a minor subdivision under new language and if one acre, it could be stated that this only applies to platting processes for that demarcation.


To review, Mr. Lloyd noted that the proposed minor plat process didn’t specify size thresholds nor did it provide a distinction for residential or commercial properties, simply anything resulting in not more than three lots.


Mayor Roe noted that the one acre clarification was then still needed.


Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to fix the old language to match; with Mr. Lloyd advising that was what the proposed language was attempting to accomplish.  Upon further discussion, Councilmember Willmus suggested, without objection to state, “… total property involved greater than one acre and any subdivision creating additional lots.


Further discussion ensued, with City Attorney Gaughan clarifying that all park dedication decisions required a determination that there was a need created by a particular project.  In the scenario of a minor plat, Mr. Gaughan noted that the City Council could, in its approval process, determine that there was no need created for park dedication and part of the submission from staff when the project came before the City Council would preserve some City Council discretion for the project that may create a need based on geography of a particular project and therefore an argument to consider park dedication.


Councilmember Willmus continued to support his language that “park dedication is not applicable unless subdividing one acre or larger.”


Mr. Lloyd clarified that this involved the starting parcel and not what is created; with Mayor Roe noting that this still provided for discretion if there is a need, but otherwise that it wasn’t on the table if less than one acre and no Parks & Recreation Commission involvement if based on that need as stated.


f.             Discuss Proposed Text Amendments to Roseville City Code, Chapter 407 (Nuisances)

Codes Coordinator Dave Englund provided suggested revisions to Chapter 407, including Mayor Roe’s suggested revisions to Section 407.02.G (Attachment A) and resident feedback to-ate (Attachment C, with one additional comment provided as a bench handout tonight).


Mr. Roe – suggested combined discussion with next item – aspects addressing farm animals – specifically pet pigs and goats


Revised Chapter 407 (Attachment B)

Section 407.01: Definitions (lines 26-28)

Mr. Englund noted revisions to this section based on other city code.


Section 407.02 – line 128

Mayor Roe noted his suggestion to move “non-domestic” in front of “animals.”


Councilmember McGehee questioned if 300’ was sufficient for lots with bees and chickens, and while it may be common it may not be realistic.


While in existing language, Mayor Roe agreed that may be an issue with bees in that 300’ may require an exception as he addressed in his proposed language (Attachment A).  Mayor Roe clarified that city code had been silent as to whether bees could be kept, but was now being addressed, stating that they would not be allowed within 300’ of an adjacent lot.


As noted by Councilmember Willmus, current code was also silent on whether roosters could be kept, with the only stipulation related to noise that would be addressed with the nuisance ordinance.


Line 130

Discussion ensued with varying opinions, with the prevailing result suggested by Councilmember Etten for a “period” after “bees” in line 130.


Line 235

Councilmember Etten corrected the end of this statement to “or” rather than “and.”


Line 244

Councilmember Etten noted that the reference to Section 407.02.A and “ground cover” was no longer relevant related to backyard composting unless involving the newly-created Item K created on line 231 (used to be Item C).


Section 407.03

Line 340 (hours to allow peddling)

Discussion ensued regarding times to allow peddling, with varying opinions expressed and rationale for each.


City Attorney Gaughan cautioned the City Council that, while it is true they can regulate peddlers and solicitors, those regulations were required to be reasonable or and often were subjected to litigation.  Mr. Gaughan advised that 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. were too restrictive for the rights to solicit; with typically 9:00 p.m. found to be allowable, but suggesting 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. would prove defensible if the intent was to be more restrictive.  Mr. Gaughan further noted that code specifically referenced a homeowner’s right to notice that solicitors were not welcomed, but when it came to governmental regulations, it was a different story.


Without objection, the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. as suggested by Councilmember Willmus, were approved for staff to include in revised language accordingly.


Section 407.10

In lines 513-517, Mr. Englund advised that previous City Council discussions on notice had not been clear, and therefore he had included both versions for further review and preferred choice (Items 4 or 5)


Mayor Roe stated that he preferred Item 5 at 100%.


Councilmember Willmus recalled that the discussion concluded in reverting back to something other than a 100% majority, (e.g. 75% or a 2/3 majority).


Mayor Roe opined that it had actually never been resolved, thus the need to resolve it now as noted by Councilmember Etten.  Mayor Roe noted that in comparison to the multiple dog ordinance, this did require a higher standard than that.


Councilmember Etten agreed with the 75%.


Without objection, staff was directed to use Item 4.


Lines 505-506

Mayor Roe provided technical corrections to strike notice “… prior to consideration by the City Council,…” since the City Council did not consider it with a process outlined for staff consideration of a variance then applicable for appeal to the City Council, and therefore should read accordingly.


Line 511

City Attorney Gaughan advised that he found the reference in line 507.a for clarity and notices pursuant to Section 407.07.


Mayor Roe disagreed, noting that these variances were dealing with a nuisance not an abatement notice.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that a variance could be requested after notice of abatement.


Mayor Roe questioned if the entire section (#2, line 510) should be struck; since similar notice was addressed on lines 521-532.


Mr. Englund advised that he read it as a property owner who had been notified of a nuisance on their property; and able to apply for a variance, but as noted by Mayor Roe, if there was already a city code in place that they were seeking a variance from, the nuisance may not yet exist.


City Attorney Gaughan suggested a provision be included to that affect; since his comments had considered an existing nuisance requiring abatement.  Therefore, Mr. Gaughan suggested retaining line 511, with notices as provided in Section 407.07.A.


Lines 521-523

City Attorney Gaughan suggested enumerating this as one provision; addressing “notify” in line 521; “shall” in line 520; and “D” in lines 528-531 as a starting point for appeals to move all under Section 407.01.


In line 201 of the proposed changes, Councilmember Etten referenced public hearing posting and questioned if that would be a violation of Item 5 in line 516 or if it should be added as an Item 6 referring to large commercial vehicles.


Discussion ensued as to whether public hearings should be included in this section at all, or whether only in the abatement section.  Staff was directed to further review whether line 201 should remain or be deleted.


g.         Discuss City Code, Chapter 407.02.G Regulating Pigs and Goats

Without objection, at the suggestion of Councilmember Willmus, Mayor Roe directed staff to defer this item to a future meeting on a date to be determined.


8.            Approve Minutes


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


11.        Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review

Mayor Roe asked that the next meeting agenda include consideration by the City Council of a text amendment for multi-family residential as a Regional Business Conditional Use designation to move the process forward to the Planning Commission as soon as possible.


Councilmember Laliberte also noted her repeated requests to look at those parcels and areas currently zoned high density residential (HDR) but not utilized to-date to see if there were areas that should be rezoned.  While recognizing that the city is in the middle of its comprehensive plan update process, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if that precluded the City Council from looking at those sites at this time.


At the request of City Manager Trudgeon, without objection, Mayor Roe confirmed that this included a broader conversation about all designated HRD parcels.


Community Development Director Kari Collins advised that the Planning Commission would begin land use discussions at their meeting next week as part of the comprehensive plan update process.  With their deeper dive into land use, including HDR, Ms. Collins suggested that the City Council delay their subsequent discussion until that initial commission feedback was available.


Mayor Roe duly noted that suggestion.


12.        Adjourn

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