City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

June 8, 2009

1.         Call Roll

Acting Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.

(Voting and Seating Order for June: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; Roe and Klausing)

Acting City Manager Chris Miller advised that City Manager Malinen had been called away unexpectedly this afternoon and was unsure if he would be able to return for tonight's meeting. 

Acting Mayor Roe noted that Mayor Klausing was excused; having previously noted his unavailability to attend tonight's meeting. 

City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.

Closed Executive Session - Discuss Acquisition of portions of property located at 2690 Cleveland Avenue and 1947 County Road C for road right-of-way purposes

City Attorney Scott Anderson reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session related to the attorney/client privileged and confidential appraisal information in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.01; and Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.c respectively.  City Attorney Anderson noted that the meeting would be tape recorded with the tape held by the City Attorney until deemed appropriate, if applicable, for public dissemination.

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:08 pm, in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.01, for the City Council, staff, and legal counsel to discuss attorney/client privileged information and confidential information related to a discussion regarding offers for the purchase of portions of 2690 Cleveland Avenue, and 1947 County Road C from Roseville Acquisitions LLC and to include Minnesota Statute, Section 13D.05, subd. 3.c for closure to discuss real property that may be subject to an offer or counter-offer to purchase.

Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be voting against the motion; since Open Meeting Law did not require closure, and since this was an important public issue, she opined that there was no need for secrecy at this point.

Acting Mayor Roe noted it was the option of the City Council whether to close the meeting for this discussion; however, he opined that it was in the City's best interests in discussing offers and potential counter-offers to do so in closed session.  Acting Mayor Roe advised that any potential action would be done in open session; noting that Item 12.g on tonight's agenda was to take such action if so indicated.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Recess

Acting Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:50 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:52 pm in Regular Session. 

2.         Approve Agenda

Acting Mayor Roe advised that, as a result of the Closed Executive Session, Item 12.g entitled, "Consider Acquisition of portions of property located at 2690 Cleveland Avenue and 1947 County Road C, City of Roseville for road and construction purposes," would be removed from tonight's agenda.

Acting Mayor Roe further noted the original agenda had been amended to include Presentation/Discussion Business Item 13.d and entitled, "Discuss Professional Services Policy."

By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.

3.         Public Comment

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

4.         Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Report

            Acting Mayor Roe made several announcements, including recognition of receipt of an Award of Merit from Government Communicators to City Communication Specialists Carolyn Curti and Tim Pratt; with Mr. Pratt awarded for the cover picture of Rosefest Parade for the City's Annual Report cover; and to Ms. Curti for an article in the September 2008 edition of the City News newsletter entitled, "Roseville Residents Invested in their Community."

Acting Mayor Roe announced co-sponsorship of a blood drive by the City Fire Department and American Red Cross on June 24, 2009 in the Willow Room, lower level of City Hall, from 10:00 am - 3:00 pm, with additional information available from Ryan Burns at 651/792-7309.

          Acting Mayor thanked those who helped celebrate the dedication of the Frank Rog Amphitheatre at Roseville's Central Park on Sunday, June 7, 2009.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of May 18, 2009 Regular Meeting

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 18, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended in the draft contained in the Council packet.

Corrections:

Page 1, Line 16, Line 20-21, and Line 41

Page 4, Lines 8 - 10; and Lines 16-17

Page 9, Lines 39 - 40

Page 16, Line 11

Page 17, Line 6, and Line 35

Page 20, Line 7

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

There were no changes to the Consent Agenda; and at the request of Acting Mayor Roe, Acting City Manager Chris Miller briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

a.                 Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Business Licenses

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one year, for the following applicants:

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

c.                  Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:

(a)  Maintenance Agreement shared with other IT partnering agencies (Roseville share is $12,000)

(b)  Shared with other IT partnering agencies (Roseville share is $2,885)

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

d.                 Approve One-day Gambling License for Central Park Foundation

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the request of Roseville Central Park Foundation to conduct a raffle on October 2, 2009 at the Roseville Skating Center located at 2261 Civic Center Drive.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

e.                 Receive Imagine Roseville 2025 Update

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, receipt of the June 2009 Update of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Medium and Long-Term Goals.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

f.                   Receive Shared Services Update

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, receipt of the June 2009 Quarterly Shared Services Update as presented.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

10.             Presentations

11.             Public Hearings

a.                 Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution for the Imposition and Collection of Fees in the Housing Improvement Area for Westwood Village I (HF0052)

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon introduced the purpose of the Public Hearing in considering a Resolution for the Imposition and Collection of Fees in the Housing Improvement Area for Westwood Village I (HF0052).

Mr. Trudgeon summarized the background and requested action as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009; stressing that the new resolution had been modified to not allow for payoffs of the assessment after bonds are issued, based on the advice of the City's financial consultant, Springsted, due to market unknowns of how many pay offs could happen over a period of time after bond issuance and potential shortfalls and impacts from early payoff for the Westwood Village I debt service reserves.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the new resolution allowed for no early pay offs once the bonds were placed; but that there were no changes in the assessment amount or allocation of assessments.

Steven Bubul, Attorney with Kennedy & Graven (470 U.S. Bank Plaza, Mpls., MN), legal counsel for City of Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), detailed the financial considerations of the resolution and the proposed General Obligation Bond issue, since the previously-passed resolution in January of 2009, as a result of further discussions and negotiations between the City and the Association Board in drafting the Development Agreement between the two  parties. 

Discussion among Mr. Bubul, staff and Councilmembers included the process for scheduled interest and principal payments and potential risks and/or impacts to both parties and the City?s taxpayers; options available to Association homeowners for prepayment, those already having prepaid and those wishing to do so at this time, limited to at least 25% within 45 days after adoption of the resolution; experiences of other cities in similar Housing Improvement Act (HIA) projects; and administrative costs and reimbursement to the City by the Association.

Further discussion included acknowledgement that 9 of the 47 units had prepaid the assessment to-date; ramifications to new buyers of the existing units for the outstanding assessment and inability to prepay it at the time of purchase of the units for those new buyers; and clarification of the bond issue as General Obligation and specifics of the issue.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern with issuance of General Obligation Bonds with the full faith and credit of the City and its taxpayers; prohibition against prepayment after the 45 day period with 7.75% interest for the 15 years of the Bond term; and concerns with potential impacts on unit owners who may find themselves in default on their mortgages based on market conditions or changing personal economics.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this Bond issue had too many risks for taxpayers as well as property owners at Westwood Village I.

Mr. Bubul addressed Councilmember Ihlan's concerns from the perspective of the City's taxpayers and homeowners at Westwood Village I; and advised that in his experience with other municipalities using this HIA tool, prohibition of prepayments have not created an impediment for sales of individual units to-date.

Acting Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 pm for the purpose of considering the adoption of a Resolution establishing the imposition and collection of fees in the Housing Improvement Area (HIA) for Westwood Village I.

Public Comment

Written comment was received from Maureen Dalnes, 2664 Mackubin Street, WWVI, dated June 3, 2009, attached hereto and made a part thereof.

Sarah Maristuen, M & H Property Management, Property Manager

On behalf of the Westwood Village I Homeowners Association, Ms. Maristuen thanked the City Council for their time and the opportunity to consider this resolution.  Ms. Maristuen asked for a show of hands from audience members having an interest in tonight's Public Hearing; and thanked them for their attendance as well.  Ms. Maristuen availed herself of any questions from the City Council or public as applicable.

Acting Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 pm with no one else appearing for or against.

Acting Mayor Roe, with Council consensus, advised that tonight's agenda would be further revised to take action on the proposed resolution, Agenda Item 12.c at this time; and entitled, "Approve Development Agreement and Adopt a Fee Resolution for Westwood Village I."

Councilmember Ihlan sought assurance that written comment, including other e-mails received by individual Councilmembers and/or staff, be included as part of the record as well.  Acting Mayor Roe duly noted this request, and directed staff to attach such written comment to tonight's meeting minutes accordingly.

Acting Mayor Roe clarified with staff and legal counsel that there were three separate actions requested; and that action was based on a simple majority vote.

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

c.                  Approve Development Agreement and Adopt a Fee Resolution for Westwood Village I

Mr. Steve Bubul reviewed the draft Development Agreement provisions as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009, identified as "Attachment B" and entitled, "Development Agreement between City of Roseville, MN and Westwood Village Association."  Mr. Bubul noted that the Development Agreement included submission to the City of annual audited financial statements for the Association; documentation of fund disbursement of funds; and final inspections before full disbursement of those funds, in addition to other protections for the City and Association.

Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and Mr. Bubul included preference in and benefits of using Housing General Obligation Bonds versus Revenue Bonds; costs for each requested cash draw (i.e., $250.00); temporarily deposited funds held by the City; and written notice requirements from the City to the Association (pages 7 and 8 of the Development Agreement) in case additional funds are required, based on protections for the City and realities and flexibility for actual notice.

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Chris Miller advised that, while the language suggested a ten day notification period, the City would know one year in advance or more of any shortcomings, based on the City's continual monitoring of bonds and cash flow projections. 

Further discussion included provision in the Development Agreement of any potential and unexpected possibilities to protect both parties; in addition to including an extra cushion through the designated interest rate to provide for unforeseen contingencies.

[Resolution - Attachment A]

Pust moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10712 entitled, "A Resolution Imposing Improvement Fees in the Housing Improvement Area and Providing for the Collection of the Fees."

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that the fee allocation was unfair to smaller units and that it was the City Council's job to make sure the allocation was fair and not to defer to the Board or Association.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the proposed fee structure did not appear to follow exactly the declarations; and advised that she would not be voting in support of the amended resolution. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she could not support prohibition for prepayment of fees from the perspective of individual unit owners who may be unable to prepay at this time, requiring them to pay 15 years of interest and potentially get caught in a default situation, causing harm to that owner and potentially to the Association with unsold properties.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the City did not have a legal basis for this provision, based on her interpretation of State Statute, and her lack of support for this restriction for the HIA.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed further concern in issuing General Obligation Bonds, potentially putting taxpayers at risk; and not providing adequate protection for spiraling defaults of individual unit owners.

Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council had held thorough discussions of this topic; and sought clarification from Mr. Bubul whether anything had changed during that time that would indicate that this is not structurally compliant with State Statute.

Mr. Bubul responded that, from his viewpoint, this was structurally compliant with State Statute; and that provisions were in place and provided in the notice explaining the unit owner?s right to prepay, and addressed distinctions in State Statute based on rights for prepayment, and the differences in the HIA and Chapter 429 as they relate to assessments. Mr. Bubul noted that whole concept of the HIA was to provide a partnership between municipalities and associations to mutually negotiate and agree upon a basis for rights and prepayments; and that this was not the City imposing assessments on the Association, but at the request of the Association and their volunteering to do so.

Councilmember Pust concurred that the Association had approached the City, based on their lack of sufficient funding and reserves of the Association.  Councilmember Pust opined that the public interest for this project is in the City assisting this housing entity retain its value and thereby remaining viable housing stock for the entire community of Roseville.  Councilmember Pust thanked Bremer Bank for stepping forward to assist the Association and the City in attempting to work through this unfortunate situation for the Association and individual homeowners, and their unflagging persistence in resolving the situation.  Councilmember Pust further opined that the City was adequately protected, as well as the Association and individual unit owners, through the language of the Development Agreement; and spoke in support of the motion.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion, opining that the topic and discussion has been exhaustive.  Councilmember Johnson sought a show of hands from those in the audience who were in favor of adoption of the Resolution, with indications that support was nearly unanimous from those Westwood Village I residents in attendance.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

[Development Agreement, Attachment B; Fifth Draft dated May 27, 2009]

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of a Development Agreement between the City of Roseville and Westwood Village Association, as detailed in Attachment B to the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that she had a strong concern that there was not public contracting provisions addressed, in accordance with municipal contracting State Statute 412.311 referencing any construction work undertaken by a City, and meant for everyone?s best interest.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the General Obligation Bonds were backed by the full faith and credit of taxpayers, and therefore, the City was obligated to ensure that the lowest responsible bidder or best value contractors were used; and further opined that the bids should be structured accordingly.

Councilmember Pust asked legal counsel, Mr. Bubul, for his interpretation of State Statute 412.311, and whether it was applicable in this case, and if not, why.

Mr. Bubul advised that the Statute was not applicable, as the contract was not between the City and a contractor, but between the Homeowners Association and a contractor.  Mr. Bubul further advised that the entire HIA process was for the City to provide financing, but that expectations of the HIA did not indicate public bidding by the City; and that any such ambiguities had been clarified during the most recent legislative session.  Mr. Bubul noted that, is the City were doing the improvements, then it would be required to follow competitive bidding Statutes; however, the City's role in the HIA was only to assist with financing.  Mr. Bubul further noted that unless the City had used its own reserves, any way it provided financing would have been through General Obligation Bonds, even if Bremer Bank had continued their involvement; that this was how a municipality borrowed money.

City Attorney Scott Anderson concurred with HRA Bond counsel, and his interpretation of language of the municipal bid statute.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned who was paying for the services of the HRA Attorney.

Councilmember Pust, as liaison to the HRA, advised that HRA funds were paying for their legal counsel; with Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noting that the Homeowner?s Association would be billed by the City for Mr. Bubul's time for reimbursement of all administrative costs, as per stipulations of the Development Agreement. 

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Miller concurred that all administrative facts had been taken into consideration in establishing the interest rate to cover those fees up to this point and ongoing throughout the term.

Acting Mayor Roe noted that this was similar to other types of Bond issues, with the cost of bond counsel factored into administrative costs.

Mr. Miller concurred with Acting Mayor Roe's observation.

Councilmember Pust clarified that those residents of Westwood Village I were paying for the services as opposed to other Roseville residents.

Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that the City needed to ensure the lowest possible bidder and bargaining power of the City for this massive project to save costs fro the Association; and risks to those unit owners who may default in the future in a worst case scenario.  Councilmember Ihlan further addressed the City's policy of issuing bonds, and potential precedent-setting for other associations seeking similar financial assistance.

Councilmember Pust, speaking on behalf of the HRA, advised that the HRA shared some of those same policy concerns addressed by Councilmember Ihlan, and would like further discussion to follow related to overall policies.  Councilmember Pust noted that, in working through this first HIA project, a number of issues had been fleshed out, and further discussion, based on this experience and learning curve, was on the HRA's agenda to bring a recommendation forward to the City Council to facilitate Council policy discussions.  Councilmember Pust further noted that, the HRA had delayed those discussions based on the projected expiration of the HIA at the end of this fiscal year; however, noted that the legislature had extended HIA's for an additional four years, facilitating further consideration and discussion as a potential issue.

Councilmember Johnson again sought an audience response of those willing to support this Development Agreement and potential risk to the Association; with audience members overwhelmingly expressing their support.

Acting Mayor Roe noted previous comments of staff related to the availability of a contingency fund to provide protection for the Association and the City's flexibility in working with them should that eventuality occur.  Acting Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion; and expressed, after careful and diligent review of terms in the Agreement, his favorable interpretation of the protections for the City as addressed; noting those difficult lessons learned in the past and the need for those better protections.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

[Disbursement Agreement, Attachment C]

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing the City of Roseville to enter into a Disbursement Agreement with Commercial Partners Title, LLC and Westwood Village Association, as detailed in Attachment C to the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009.

Acting Mayor Roe expressed appreciation to staff in clarification of details and issues; and spoke in support of the Agreement.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Acting Mayor Roe expressed congratulations to residents of Westwood Village I.

a.                 Approve Community Development Department Request for a Ramsey County Court Citation for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 1128 Sextant Avenue

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided an update of this property, with pictures taken earlier today, of continuing code violations in the subject backyard; and recommendation for a court citation rather than City abatement to avoid undue responsibility by the City for personal property being stored on the exterior of the property.

Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had been in contact and discussion with the property owner, Dr. Kenneth Meyer, 333 South Seventh Street in Minneapolis; and that while some progress had been made, it was not sufficient to adhere to performance standards and protect the integrity of the neighborhood.

The property owner was not present at tonight's meeting.

Councilmember Pust requested of staff, for the benefit of the public, to define those issues related to outside storage of personal items; and how to resolve those issues; which Mr. Trudgeon duly provided.

Mr. Trudgeon also reviewed the abatement process; as well as Ramsey County citation process proposed.

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included verification by staff that the tarp in the backyard did indeed cover a boat and not other personal property.

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, directing staff to proceed with issuance of a Ramsey County Court Citation to the property owner of 1128 Sextant to ensure abatement of public nuisance violations, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Community Development Department Request to Issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 648 Iona Lane

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided Councilmembers with a narrative and photographical update on the subject property since the original public nuisance was sent out in June of 2008; ongoing discussion with the property owner(s); and recent activities of the property owner to resolve remaining issues, based on repeated re-inspections by staff.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the most recent re-inspection by staff was done on May 18, and May 26, 2009, and that this had apparently prompted the property owner, upon receipt to the property owner of tonight's Request for Council Action.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff could no longer provide abatement of the remaining issues, since the siding had been removed from a major portion of the home by the property owner(s).  Mr. Trudgeon noted that staff was reassured by the progress being made by the property owner; however, sought authority from the City Council for issuing a Citation if the owner did not complete the work in a timely manner, based on past delays experienced.  Mr. Trudgeon assured Councilmembers that, prior to filing the Citation with Ramsey County, staff would make a final inspection for compliance; and if the work had been completed, would not file the Citation.

Discussion included staff timing for preparation of the Citation; the process itself with a Preliminary Hearing by Ramsey County; and intent of the property owner.

Property owner representative; son of Manzoor and Mahroof Moghul

The property owner's son provided Councilmembers with their receipt of notice of tonight's proposed action and their work prior to that notice (including new windows and purchase of siding).  Discussion included storage of the materials off-site and their subsequent theft; lack of funds to repurchase replacement siding; and their intent to complete the project as soon as possible.  The property owner's son requested a delay in issuing the Citation to allow them to complete the work within the next few days, weather allowing.

The property owner was assured that if they continued to work at their current rate, they  could be able to finish the work and avoid the Citation; but that the City Council would ask to authorize staff to issue a Citation to ensure that the property owner remained motivated and continued to pursue completion and realize the seriousness of the situation.

The Moghul's son promised Councilmembers and staff that the work would be completed.

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, directing staff to proceed with issuance of a Ramsey County Court Citation to the property owner of 648 Iona Lane to ensure abatement of remaining City Code violations and public nuisances, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009.

Further discussion included clarification for the Moghul's of the process for issuing a Citation; their need to continue steady resolution of the non-compliance issues; and appreciation by the City Council, and their neighbors, for the property owner's completion of the project.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that the property owner was making a good faith effort to complete the work.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

d.         Set Bond Sale Date for Issuance of Housing Improvement Revenue Bonds for Westwood Village I

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the process for scheduling a bond sale date for issuance of Housing Improvement Revenue Bonds for Westwood Village I.

Discussion included timing of the 45 day objection and prepayment period ending July 23, 2009 and the proposed  Bond Sale Date of July 20, 2009 and no apparent conflicts indicated; and communication between the City's financial bond consultant Springsted, and those probable bidders throughout the process.

Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10713 entitled, "Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $1,660,000 Taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Bonds, Series 2009A" on 7/20/2009.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that it was not right for the City to issue General Obligation bonds for this purpose; and that it would be setting a precedent.

Acting Mayor Roe opined that setting of precedent was tested by the will of any given City Council and any given issue before the City Council.  Acting Mayor Roe noted that, to-date, there had not been a flood of people requesting HIAs in the four years such an option had been available and during consideration over the last four years of this issue by the City Council; and opined that it was reasonable to proceed in this manner and deal with resulting requests, if any, as they arise.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that her concern about setting a precedent was not whether the Council authorized additional HIAs in the future, but a policy to reasonable decline doing so; and further opine that with this action the City Council was opening up the City to that potential without forethought.

Acting Mayor Roe reminded Councilmembers that the HRA would be discussing potential policy issues and making recommendation to the City Council for further discussion and consideration should other proposals come forward.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

e.                 Set Bond Refunding Date for the City's 1999 Street Construction Bonds

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Miller summarized the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009; based on current market conditions, lower interest rates, and potential financial benefits in refunding Street Construction Bonds issued in 1999, and scheduled to retire in 2014. Mr. Miller noted that, given the relatively small savings projected, it would not be normally advantageous to refinance the bonds; however, with the City going to the bond market for issuance of the Westwood Village I Housing Revenue Bonds, and by combining both financings, the City could potentially save thousands of dollars of issuance costs.  Mr. Miller advised that the City would have the option to back out by July 20, 2009 if the market rates begin to rise, with staff continuing their scrutiny of the bond market over the next few weeks.

Discussion included the original issue amount and that remaining; and potential costs incurred for refinancing the bonds.

Councilmember Pust commended Mr. Miller for his ongoing monitoring of market conditions and for his fiscal responsibility of taxpayer monies.

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10714 entitled, "Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $1,105,000 General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2009B." on 7/20/2009

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

f.                   Request by AEON for Final Development Plan, Final Plat, Rezoning and PUD Agreement approval for Har Mar Apartments (PF07-068)

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009, and the request for FINAL DEVELOPMETN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOMPENT, FINAL PLAT, REZONING AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT to complete site and existing building improvements to the Har Mar Apartments, 2225 to 2265 Snelling Avenue and to develop a new 50 unit, 4 story apartment building in the northwest corner of the property.

Councilmember Ihlan noted previous discussions related to this project and policy issues concerning affordable housing, the City's main reason for considering approval of this request.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that the draft PUD Agreement included no discussion of affordability; relocation of current tenants; and opined that incorporation of those specifics within the PUD Agreement provided an opportunity to link those issues and assure that the City achieved some of those goals, and compliance and future enforcement.

Councilmember Pust noted discussions and presentations during HRA meetings, on those specific issues; and improvements in affordability of the property in addition to Section 8 vouchers, not previously available.

Applicant Representative, John Rocker, Senior Project Manager for AEON

Mr. Rocker advised that 13 renters were scheduled to be relocated as their units were deemed "over occupied," and would be relocated to comparable housing units, in accordance with regulations determined by Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with their moving expenses paid in full, in addition to payment in any rent differentials for up to 42 months, representing a total outlay to AEON of approximately $17,000.  Mr. Rocker advised that those tenants wishing to remain during renovation could do so, and it had been agreed that, while rents for new units will be higher than those current rents, AEON had agreed to leave those existing tenant rents at their current rate, and that after their first year, they would experience annual rent adjustments, similar to those in the market at between 3-5%.  Mr. Rocker advised that a financial consultant had been hired to ensure AEON's compliance with those financing requirements and rates.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that she would prefer to have those requirements stipulated and documented in the agreement.

City Manager Malinen arrived at this time, approximately 8:22 pm; and remained in the audience.

Acting Mayor Roe sought terms for those tenants remaining in the complex during the construction process and AEON's terms for dealing with those tenants.

Mr. Rocker advised that 19 households would need to be temporarily relocated elsewhere in the complex during renovations to their existing building; and those provisions under HUD relocation requirements stipulated that the tenants be relocated in both instances at the expense of AEON.  Mr. Rocker advised that those impacted tenants had been duly notices in writing by AEON, with all details and provisions for the process stipulated in those notices.

Councilmember Pust noted that, while not contractual, the provisions had been documented in writing; and pointed out language of page 3 of 7 of the Development Agreement, that the Developer would comply with all City, State and Federal regulations, including HUD requirements; allowing the City to address any non-compliance by AEON for its tenants.

Councilmember Ihlan noted that City's experience with Centennial Commons and applicable standards and responsibilities; and asked that the City Council ensure that those provisions were stipulated and documented in the PUD Agreement.

Councilmember Pust opined that she was supportive of making a motion based on discussion and assurances based on the record of tonight's meeting.

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon noted that, at a future meeting, a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Agreement would be coming forward to the City Council; and suggested that it be more appropriate to address specific expectations in that document, rather than in this Development Agreement.

Councilmember Ihlan noted that the 60 day review deadline was not until June 30, 2009; and opined that the City needed to be consistent with all documents; and that there was no reason to craft language from the dais at tonight's meeting, when action could be delayed for further language refinement.

Acting Mayor Roe asked Mr. Rocker if there were other calendar or schedule requirements for AEON that may be impacted by delay of tonight's requested action.

Mr. Rocker responded affirmatively, that delay of tonight's requested action may negatively impact their application to the State for final tax credits and possible stimulus monies; based on application requirements for the project's status with Building Permit review; and their need to move the project forward as soon as possible.  Mr. Rocker opined that he would prefer to see tonight's action specific to land use decisions; and the other issues addressed as part of their upcoming request for TIF.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the City?s recourse should AEON not return seeking TIF funding, if other funding sources should be found.

Councilmember Pust opined that there were no additional funding sources available; that TIF was required for Phase II of the project and an integral part of the entire funding package.  Councilmember Pust advised that, should AEON lose out on housing finance monies during this funding round, they could lose out completely.  Councilmember Pust suggested that the City Council proceed on tonight's requested actions, based on the testimony received from the applicant tonight, be incorporated and part of the Development Agreement.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of such a condition of approval, allowing for future wordsmithing by staff of the document.

City Planner Paschke suggested that the breakdown on affordability be attached as an Exhibit to the Development Agreement.

Community Development Director Trudgeon suggested that AEON's letter to tenants as to how the project would work be included as an attachment.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for AEON (Har Mar Apartments) identified as Attachment B to the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009 (PF07-068); and amended to include Exhibit A pertaining to documentation and tenant notices related to affordability and relocation issues as discussed at tonight's meeting.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Councilmember Ihlan requested that a copy of Exhibit A, once drafted, be provided to the Council as soon as it was available.  Community Development Director Trudgeon confirmed that a copy would be provided.

[8.0.b]

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the FINAL PLAT (Har Mar Apartment Addition) creating one lot for the existing five apartment buildings; one lot for the future 50 unit building; and public road right-of-way dedication for the service drive, including all necessary public easements.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1382 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code Changing the Official Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at 2225 to 2265 Snelling Avenue from Limited Business District (B01) to Planned Unit Development District."

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

13.             Business Items - Presentations/Discussions

a.                 Discuss and Consider an Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code, Chapters 801.16D, 801.12E, and 803.01 related to Water Rates/Collection of Charges

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Miller summarized the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009; amending language related to certifying delinquent utility accounts more frequently than the current practice for their annual certification; and prompted by increased bankruptcy filings from utility customers.  Mr. Miller noted that under federal law, in some instances the City was prohibited from initiating collection efforts of those delinquent accounts, requiring those unpaid charges to be incorporated into operating costs and impacting all taxpayers.

Discussion included frequency for certification based on practicalities and staff resources; and the Ramsey County process and confirmation to the City for next year's property taxes.

Councilmembers concurred that this was a prudent step.

Mr. Miller offered to bring the proposed ordinance back at a future meeting for action; however,  council members suggested action at tonight's meeting.

City Attorney Anderson advised that there was no statute preventing the City Council from taking action at tonight's meeting, even though the agenda indicated that it was a discussion, rather than action item, but the report requested Council action.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1383 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Roseville City Code: Title 8, Section 801.16D - Water Rates and Collection of Charges; Title 8, Section 802.12E - Sewer Rates and Collection of Charges; and Title 8, Section 803.01-I - Stormwater Rates and Collection of Charges."

Councilmember Ihlan expressed her preference to adopt the amended language at a future meeting.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; and Roe.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

b.                 Discuss an Ordinance to Roseville City Code, amending  Title 4 related to Yard Requirements and Regulation of Residential Composting

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon addressed the proposed ordinance amendments to City Code, Title 4, related to yard cover requirements.  Mr. Trudgeon provided clarification of yard cover options for those residents not having natural turf grass, but having natural landscaping (i.e., prairie grasses) or wooded areas on their properties.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff was recommending clarifying language indicating no bare soil and groundcover requirements. 

Councilmember Ihlan presented several hypothetical scenarios to test the proposed language; which were addressed by staff, including combining bare soil and weeds; landscape rock versus piled gravel; and definition of noxious weeds as addressed by other state and federal agency definitions.

Discussion included the intent for groundcover reducing erosion; and impervious surface requirements.

City Attorney Anderson noted combinations for vegetation and landscaping and standard interpretation of State Statute.

Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt

Mr. Pratt addressed the proposed language amendment related to residential composting; and reduced specificity for composting as previously addressed by the City Council; while still allowing staff to enforce code violations.  Mr. Pratt address some specific issues staff had encountered in the past (i.e., accumulation of brush piles or unconfined compost materials); need for education of residents in composting allowing for managed decomposition of materials, to not allow residents to suggest that bush piles or debris piles were "compost materials" when there was no indication that they were being managed as such.  Mr. Pratt advised that the current language was based on the best elements of the City of Minneapolis code (from 1990) and that of the City of St. Paul (from 1994); with removal of more limiting language (i.e., description of materials removed). 

Discussion included code enforcement issues encountered by staff to-date; and uncovered and unmanaged materials in backyards causing detrimental impacts for the neighborhood (e.g., odors and rodents).

Carl J. Rosen, Ph.D., University of Minnesota Professor and Extension Soil Scientist/Horticultural Crops; Primary author of composting bulletin and a Roseville resident

Mr. Rosen addressed the positives and negatives of the proposed language amendments recognizing staff's intent to regulate nuisances; however, Mr. Rosen opined that the proposed language may serve to discourage residents from yard composting, and ultimately serve as a setback for addressing sustainable yard waste throughout the City.  Mr. Rosen opined that proposed language was too restrictive, making it difficult for some to compost on-site, requiring them to compost off-site and discourage their efforts.

Mr. Rosen addressed specific concerns in Section 409.02 of the proposed ordinance, noting that lot sizes in Roseville were larger than those of Minneapolis and St. Paul, creating more yard waste than could be accommodated in two 5? x 5? bins, inclusive of his own yard, and specifically during the fall of the year until those leaves had deteriorated sufficiently.  Mr. Rosen noted smaller containers, containing mostly kitchen scraps, actually attracting rodents and causing damage to the vessel itself. 

Mr. Rosen further addressed specific concerns in Section 409.06 related to management of compost piles; noting that some may be unable to comply (i.e., elderly residents) with restrictions; and noted that there were many ways to manage a compost pile without repeated turning.

Mr. Rosen opined that there were ways to regulate nuisances, and a process needed to be in place; however, he opined that he was not confident that this proposed language was the best way to do so.

Councilmember Johnson thanked Mr. Rosen for attending tonight's meeting; and opined that he had excellent points for further discussion, but sought how Mr. Rosen would draw a distinction between those abusing current ordinance and those making a bone fide effort at backyard composting; and asked if Mr. Rosen was available to assist staff in further refinement.

Mr. Rosen recognized the difficulties in that distinction and the different degrees of composting materials; and volunteered his time and expertise to staff in resolving existing issues.

Discussion included need for enclosures or restrictions on compost materials; and the need for a flexible process in managing micro-organisms.

Councilmembers requested that staff and Mr. Rosen consult to resolve remaining issues and to provide a more flexible process, while allowing for regulatory prevention of nuisances that are not qualified as composting and modifying language to accommodate those who are attempting compliance and sustainable efforts.

c.                  Discuss and Affirm the City Council Travel Policy

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Miller summarized the City?s out-of-state travel policy for City Council affirmation or revisions; noting that existing language had been crafted from League of MN Cities (LMC) language and was consistent with peer communities.  Mr. Miller advised that MN Statute 471.661 required municipalities to adopt and annually review their out-of-state travel policy for Councilmembers.

Councilmember Pust expressed appreciation to staff for bringing this forward in a public forum; and expressed confusion that, to her knowledge, this had not been previously brought forward for annual review.  Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the existing language, offering no suggested additions or removals.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the current policy, opining that it looked like a good policy.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the policy was good, and had been adopted following substantial discussion.

Acting Mayor Roe noted that he had suggestions for minor wordsmithing, and could provide those at this time, or at a later date.

Discussion included how this policy related to City staff as well (e.g., Item #15 related to frequent flyer miles) and that those miles were the property of the City, which was also a state requirement.

Mr. Miller advised that, while language of Item #15 was silent as it related to staff travel, it was standard practice currently being followed; and could be incorporated into staff policy in the future.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, affirmation of Resolution No. 10351 entitled, "Resolution Establishing a City Council Training and Expense Reimbursement Policy" establishing a City Council Out-of-State Travel Policy; amended as follows:

Page 1, General Guidelines:

1)     The event, workshop, conference or assignment must be approved [2.] in advance by the City Council at an open meeting and must include an estimate of the cost of the travel.  In evaluating the out-of-state travel request, the Council will consider the following: ?

2)     In evaluating the out-of-state travel request, the Council will consider the following: ?

·1.                       Whether the elected official will be receiving training ?

Page 2, #11:

[The City Council may place] [L] [l]imitations on the number of council members who can attend the same event.

Page 3, #13, 14, and 15:

Incomplete sentences: Correct with suggested language as follows:

13. [Requirements for] Council members [to] [shall] give an oral report on the results of

the trip at the next Council meeting.

14. The City Council retains the ability to make exceptions to this policy as it deems

appropriate.

                   15.  All frequent flyer miles are the property of the City and will accrue to the City

accordingly.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Pust; Ihlan; and Roe.

Nays: None.

d.                 Discuss Professional Services Policy

Councilmember Pust introduced proposed revisions to the City?s Professional Services Policy and apologized that the information was not included in the initial agenda packets.  Councilmember Pust detailed proposed revisions to allow further discussion among Councilmembers, as she would not be in attendance at the nest two regular Council meetings.

Councilmember Pust reviewed the redlined "Attachment A" to the Request for Council Action dated June 8, 2009 and identified as Item 13.d on the revised June 8, 2009 agenda.

Discussion included preferred outlined numerical format; and rationale for proposed language revisions to remove confusion and provide maximum transparency.

Further policy discussion included whether allowing previous service providers to bid again based on recognizing that their expertise may be the best value for the City if their costs are comparable; and whether to allow them to bid again based on the market; need for mid-term review of any and all contracts and depending on their actual term; terms of contracts; Code of Ethics and avoidance of conflicts of interest; staff contacts at the discretion of the City Manager; and additional procedures.

Councilmember Pust advised that she had attempted to incorporate Councilmember Johnson's suggested revisions in their entirety without changing his original intent, while refining those suggestions; with Councilmember Johnson in agreement with the resulting outcome.

Acting Mayor Roe questioned whether other individual Councilmember comments were incorporated into the process.

Councilmember Pust advised that, to her knowledge, she had not received any additional comments from other Councilmembers.  Councilmember Pust advised that she had thoroughly reviewed the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) memo regarding professional services and reviewed referenced statutes and applications to municipalities.

Acting Mayor Roe advised that he had submitted comments through City Manager Malinen, but that they were consistent with those proposed by Councilmember Pust.

Councilmember Pust apologized that she was not in receipt of those suggestions from Acting Mayor Roe, and requested that the City Manager resubmit them to her for review.

Further discussion included language related to "best value contracting" versus "best overall value" and implications of both.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the proposed additions; noting that her main concern remained with removal of previous provisions that consulting firms not be engaged for more than two consecutive three year terms; and basing her concern on actual experience in seeking bids for City Attorney and/or City Prosecutor services and a process discouraging open competition from firms not wanting to bid against established firms due to their desire to preserve their professional relationships.

Acting Mayor Roe noted that he had previously spoken in support of the six years and out provision, based on the concerns expressed by Councilmember Ihlan. However, he had heard the concerns expressed by others about that provision during the recent City Attorney and Prosecutor contract process, and now expressed support for a process without the six-and-out provision, as long as there was a market-place point of view and best value approach, and emphasized an open process.

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Miller suggested Councilmembers consider, under added language to the policy section, that subsequent or extended contracts with the same firm be allowed, since there was a potential for more cost-savings to the City through negotiating a bid extension rather than a full-blown new contract and related expenses to the provider in submitting a new proposal (e.g., CPA firms) and built into the proposal to the City's detriment and increased costs.

Further discussion included whether to include flexibility in the policy to allow deviation at the City Council level.

City Manager Bill Malinen

City Manager Malinen addressed whether to include a monetary threshold for staff to determine when to implement the policy and when administrative discretion was sufficient for day-to-day quotes by phone or in writing.

Councilmember Pust suggested that the intent of the proposed language was to allow the City Manager that discretion, rather than adherence to a set threshold, depending on economies and market conditions, and under applicable State Statute; with the City Manager using that discretion and providing frequent reporting to the City Council.

Acting Mayor Roe noted that there was some precedent in staff using their discretion (e.g., building maintenance and auditors); and suggested further consideration and review by Councilmembers to determine if the proposed language addressed the Council's intent.

Councilmember Pust noted that the current language did not provide for such specificity either and no problems had become apparent to-date.

Councilmember Johnson thanked Councilmember Pust for her review of the Policy and suggested language.

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Bill Malinen provided a projected agenda items for future meeting.

          Discussion included ongoing budget discussions, including upcoming issues related to values, trends, and legislative impacts; and review by staff of the June 15, 2009 meeting to reduce the proposed meeting length.

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

None.

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:36 pm.