City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

June 15, 2009

1.         Call Roll

Mayor Klausing 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)

Finance Director Chris Miller served as Acting City Manager, with City Manager Malinen having been previously excused from tonight’s meeting.  City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.  Mayor Klausing noted that Councilmember Pust had been previously excused from tonight’s meeting.  Mayor Klausing also thanked Councilmember Roe for serving as Acting Mayor at last week’s Council meeting to allow him to attend a family event.

Closed Executive Session – Discuss Acquisition of portions of property located at 2690 Cleveland Avenue and 1947 County Road C for Road and Construction 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 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 City Attorney Anderson until deemed appropriate, if applicable, for public dissemination.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:06 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 counteroffer 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.

Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; opining that, depending on the outcome of the discussion during the Closed Executive Session, the property acquisition itself would be part of the regular meeting agenda, as indicated on tonight’s agenda; with Councilmembers able to state their positions on any potential action at that time.  Mayor Klausing opined that, as elected officials, the City Council was charged with looking out for individual taxpayer interests, which sometimes required confidential discussions during property acquisition negotiations.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 6:39 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:44 pm in Regular Session. 

2.         Approve Agenda

Mayor Klausing noted that Business Action Item 12.g entitled, “Approve Request by Bituminous Roadways for Conditional Use for Outdoor Storage of Aggregate Materials and Heavy Equipment at 2280 Walnut Street (PF09-010),” had been removed from the Agenda due to the filing of a petition  with the State of MN Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requesting further environmental review.

Councilmember Ihlan requested that the item remain on the agenda to allow public comment; and to provide an opportunity for council discussion as to future notice to affected neighborhoods.

By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Klausing 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

Mayor Klausing 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.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of June 8, 2009 Regular Meeting

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the June 8, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.

Corrections (previously indicated):

Page 6, Line 27

Page 9, Line 29

Page 12, Line 7

Page 13, Line 34

Page 14, Line 22

Page 15, Line 10

Page 16, Line 31

Page 18, Line 22

Page 19, Line 16

Page 24, Lines 6 – 12

Additional Corrections

§         Councilmember Roe noted that e-mails had been included as attachments to the meeting minutes; and requested that staff ensure any necessary redacting was completed prior to posting on the website.

§         Page 18, Line 22, change reference to “Attachment A,” to “Exhibit A.”

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Klausing, Acting City Manager/Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

a.                 Approve Payments

Councilmember Ihlan questioned an expenditure on page 1 of the Accounts Payable listing in the amount of $1,767.79 for “Pelicans” to the vendor Botach Tactical – ACH; and Acting City Manager Miller advised that the expenditure was related to the DWI Special Enforcement Teams, and would provide additional information to the City Council.

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

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Business Licenses

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

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

            Nays: None.

c.                  Approve St. Rose of Lima Church One-day Gambling Permit and Temporary Liquor License

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the request of St. Rose of Lima Church to conduct a raffle and temporary liquor license on  September 19, 2009 at St. Rose Catholic Church located at 2048 Hamline Avenue N.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

d.                 Accept Target Corporation Donation of Seven Used Lap Top Computers

Mayor Klausing thanked Target Corporation for their donation; noting that currently staff was required to move computers from other offices to the Emergency Operations Center, and that this donation would allow computers to remain in the EOC and dedicated specifically to important emergency functions.

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, acceptance of the donation of seven used lap top computers from Target Corporation.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

                        Nays: None.

e.                 Second Finding of Parcel Coverage and Structurally Substandard Buildings in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10715 entitled, “Resolution Making Certain Findings with Respect to Substandard Buildings in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area (Redevelopment Project);” finding that the parcels identified in Exhibit A of the Request for Council Action dated June 15, 2009, meet the 70% coverage requirement and buildings, as listed on Exhibit A of the resolution are structurally substandard.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

10.             Presentations

a.                 Joint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission

Parks & Recreation Chair Bob Willmus thanked Councilmembers for meeting with the Commission; and asked each Commissioner present to introduce themselves.  Those present included: Chair Bob Willmus; and Commissioners Gale Pederson; David Holt; Mary Holt; Harold Ristow; Sarah Brodt Lenz; and Jason Etten were in attendance.

Chair Willmus noted that Commissioners James Stark; Matthew Hiber; and Ben Kendall were unable to attend tonight’s meeting.

Chair Willmus provided a brief summary of focus areas of major concern to the Commission: Staffing levels and funding for the Park Improvement Fund (PIP).  Chair Willmus expounded on both issues, providing historical information, unintended consequences of ongoing budget reductions; and how to rectify those areas of concern in the 2010 Budget process and for the best interest of the City overall, its residents, and their quality of life.

Discussion included funding for diseased tree removal coming from Park and Recreation funds, rather than being available for ongoing maintenance/repairs; request for $250,000 for the department in the 2010 budget cycle; and requesting that the City Council establish a Park and Recreation Endowment fund, similar to the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) used for streets.

Mayor Klausing thanked Commissioners for attending; and noted the difficulties faced by the City Council during these economic times and limited resources available.  Mayor Klausing noted considerations given to all departments, each request, and comfort levels in setting the annual levy; in addition to recent legislative actions or inactions and levy increases being capped and tied to the implicit price deflator, in addition to funds previously designated for cities now being unallocated.  Mayor Klausing recognized the concerns expressed, opined that he personally shared that concern, and noted that the City Council was open to suggestions to alleviate ongoing budget shortfalls.

Further discussion included a comprehensive review of City services to determine those that may no longer be relevant and re-examining financing across departments for City services; expectations of the community that the community’s parks and recreation opportunities are also a core value, similar to the Police, Fire and Public Works functions; and historic funding cuts in the Parks and Recreation Department, rather than city-wide reductions;.

Councilmember Johnson noted that this year’s budget process will be somewhat different as the City Council moves toward budgeting for outcomes; and all items would be reviewed from that perspective.  Councilmember Johnson concurred that the Parks and Recreation Department had taken the hit over the years; however, he opined that even though these are tough times, he thought expenditures for the department were a wise expenditure for the City, and a good place to put money now.  Councilmember Johnson reiterated that this budget process would be difficult and different; but that it would allow the City Council to identify what projects and services the City could provide and their actual value to the community; with citizens needing to understand the situation facing cities at this time.

Councilmember Roe opined that it made sense to better position the City financially; noting funding gaps for all capital needs had already been identified; and noted the suggestion of the Commission to discuss a referendum following the Park Master Planning process to seek citizen support and to endow some of the future costs for the Department.  Councilmember Roe offered his support of a referendum to allow for endowing capital improvements for the park system.

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the bond issue serve to create endowments for parks, park maintenance and to allow acquisition of key natural areas when they became available.

Councilmember Roe noted that it was a lot easier to do acquisition when the City was still growing; however, now that the City was fully developed, he supported involving citizens to seek their support for moving forward.

Further discussion included allocation of funds for park improvements pulled to address diseased and hazardous tree removal; and whether the City Council was supportive of a Tree Replacement Program and Ordinance.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of a Tree Replacement Program that would be incorporated in the City’s land use process for tree preservation on private property as well as public property.

Additional discussion included rationale for designation of PIP funds in the amount of $50,000 for boulevard tree removal, with Commissioners opining that that was completely out of the realm of parks, and had formerly come from Public Works funds; and removed the Department’s ability to address purchase and/or replacement of play equipment, with a limited lifespan of approximately 13 years.  Commissioners noted the potential impacts to funds in eliminating the current problems with the Emerald Ash Borer.  Commissioners noted that citizens were already voicing their concern with reduction or elimination of certain services that the community had become accustomed to.  Commissioners addressed the possibility of funding from the state and or federal government for this most recent tree epidemic, similar to the Dutch Elm issues and funding appropriations.

Mayor Klausing noted that City staff is proactive in seeking funding from various sources.

Councilmember Roe noted that, when Ash trees were planted, this was not a foreseen problem; and expressed hope that other government agencies would eventually provide some assistance.  However, Councilmember Roe opined that the City may need to look at creative funding, even with that assistance, to provide matching funds.  Councilmember Roe further opined that the Diseased and Hazardous Tree Program  was probably put in the Parks and Recreation realm, since the Forester was currently employed in that department. 

Commissioners noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission also served as the City’s Tree Board; the possibility of homeowners covering costs for boulevard tree replacement as currently done in some municipalities; and citizens attending more local functions and utilizing their parks more during these difficult financial times rather than out-of-town vacations.

Mayor Klausing encouraged citizens to contact the City Council with their comments, as well as the Commission.

Further discussion included the Parks Master Plan process and increased opportunities for communication between the Commission and City Council; and whether additional joint meetings would be profitable as certain scenarios arise.

Mayor Klausing encouraged more communications, not more meetings; noted that the City Council received agendas and meeting minutes of all Advisory Commission meetings; and suggested additional formal and/or informal communication (i.e., e-mail or phone) during the Master Plan process.  Mayor Klausing noted the success of the recent Comprehensive Plan Update process and the regular meetings of the Steering Committee, and suggested that may be a good process for the Parks and Recreation Commission to follow, allowing the process to be further institutionalized and open for public comment and observation.

Councilmember Roe concurred with Mayor Klausing’s suggested Steering Committee process, with the Committee providing regularly scheduled updates back to the City Council to institutionalize it, with the City Council having some participation in the process, however, not as strong of a presence as on the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee.

Mayor Klausing asked that staff, as an action item from tonight’s joint meeting, to alert City Manager Malinen to provide the City Council with more updates on a regular basis during the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process.

Mayor Klausing recognized the comprehensive, successful, and active volunteer services already provided in the community; and charged the Commission with making recommendation on how to expand that volunteer network during these challenging budget years.  Mayor Klausing spoke in support of a referendum, specific to capital expenditures; opining that bonding would put an obligation on future property owners, and in doing so, those improvements to be covered by the bond should be long-term capital needs and to put infrastructure in place.

Further discussion included capital funding commitments for Harriet Anderson Nature Center (HANC); and concerted volunteer efforts similar to that of Habitat for Humanity.

Councilmember Roe opined that playgrounds were capital assets as much as buildings or facilities; and that maintenance was routine (i.e., lawn mowing).

Mayor Klausing concurred with Councilmember Roe’s observation.

Chair Willmus again thanked the City Council for taking time to meet with the Commission; and reiterated the Commissions major concerns for staffing and the PIP Program.

Mayor Klausing thanked Commissioners for taking time to attend tonight’s joint meeting; and personally apologized if he appeared to come across as negative, when trying to bring people down to realities for maintaining current programs and/or services (i.e., increased user fees, property tax increases, or finding other funding sources).   Mayor Klausing opined that the City had squeezed out the majority of efficiencies over the years; and there wasn’t much remaining to be found.  Mayor Klausing opined that the Commission had great ideas; and encouraged Commissioners, and those citizens observing this discussion, to provide additional input to the City Council.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the Commission taking the Master Plan process out into the community.

Councilmember Roe suggested that the Commission consider additional contributions/donations as another source of revenue, such as sponsorships.  Councilmember Roe noted the need to abide by existing City policy as it relates to such sponsorships (i.e., advertising on athletic fields); and to alert the City Council, through recommendation by the Commission, if a policy needs to be put in place or revised.

11.             Public Hearings

a.                 Public Hearing regarding AEON’s request for establishment of TIF District 18 for Har Mar Apartments

Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel provided a brief background summary of the request by AEON (Har Mar Apartments) for the City to consider establishment of a housing tax increment financing (TIF) District on the Development Parcel.  Ms. Radel noted that a policy discussion for the City Council had been tentatively scheduled for July 13, 2009, following the City’s financial consultant, Springsted’s, analysis of  pro forma and background information provided by AEON, and their analysis of whether the project met housing TIF requirements based on income level  criteria, once determined by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA).  Ms. Radel advised that final details would be worked out, if the City Council decides to move forward to create TIF District 18 following the “but for” test analysis and financial projections for renovation of the 120 existing units of the existing building (Phase I) and potential increment over the life of the district with the addition of the new building in Phase II.

Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. for proposed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 18; with consideration of the establishment of the TIF District to take place on July 13, 2009.

Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included financial projections of TIF and relationship to the funding gap as detailed on the spreadsheet on Page 15, Attachment 2 of the staff report dated June 15, 2009; clarification that the District was not overlapping surrounding properties, as defined on the map, and exclusive to the Har Mar parcel itself, both for Phase I and Phase II; timing of the project to allow collection of increment on the existing renovations for Phase I and applying to the Phase II new construction; and housing district qualification tests determined by MHFA through tax credits and their subsequent structuring.

Further discussion included ownership of the complex and locking in of the affordability mix obligation by MHFA based on tax credits; and deed restrictions for affordable housing going with the land for tax credits whether the property remained owned by AEON or another owner.

Mayor Klausing thanked staff for the comprehensive information provided in the staff report.

Ms. Radel noted that the City would need to discuss deviation from their TIF housing policy allowing for a term of 20 years; given that this analysis was done for 25 or 26 years; or retain the 20 year policy, and advise AEON that they would need to find another source to fill the remaining funding gap.

Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against.

b.                 Public Hearing regarding Issuance of Conduit Debt Refunding Bonds for Eagle Crest Senior Housing/Presbyterian Homes

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Chris Miller introduced this issue, as detailed in the staff report dated June 15, 2009; and those facilities impacted.

Mary Ippel, the City’s Bond Counsel of Briggs & Morgan was present to respond to any City Council or public questions; and representatives of Presbyterian Homes were also present.

Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 6:44 p.m. for the purpose of considering the issuance of conduit refunding bonds for Eagle Crest, Inc. / Presbyterian Homes.

Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 6:44 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against.

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.                 Consider Issuing Conduit Debt Refunding Bonds for Eagle Crest Senior Housing/Presbyterian Homes

Councilmember Ihlan questioned if there were provisions to recoup financing benefits if the facilities didn’t remain under current owners and under their current tax exempt status.

Mary Ippel from Briggs & Morgan

Ms. Ippel advised that the proceeds had been loaned directly to Eaglecrest, a 501C-3 corporation; and that there were no income restrictions due to charitable nature of the corporation.  Ms. Ippel further advised that proceeds could be transferred, as long as it didn’t impact the status of the bonds, and remained charitable and not a for-profit entity.  Ms. Ippel noted that the bonds would be secured by guarantee of Freddie Mac; and that there were provisions in the documents as to when their transfer could be allowed.

Mayor Klausing reminded Finance Director Miller that the Council had previously discussed a broader policy discussion related to conduit financing.

Mr. Miller advised that staff had slated the June 29, 2009 regular business meeting to have that broader discussion. 

Mr. Miller advised that the requested action at tonight’s meeting was consistent with other Council action over several decades.

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10716 entitled, “Resolution Authorizing the Issuance, Sale and Delivery of the City of Roseville, MN Senior Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Eaglecrest Project), Series 2009; and Approving the Form of and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of the Bonds and Various Documents Relating Thereto.”

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 3076 Woodbridge Street

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated June 15, 2009; providing an update on the property as of today consisting of personal items stored on the property in addition to numerous unlicensed vehicles on the property for some time.

Mr. Munson reviewed ongoing discussions with Mr. Staff, the property owner; ownership of three, now four unlicensed vehicles on the property belonging to the property owners’ sons,  with repeated requests by Mr. Staff to his sons to remove them to no avail.  Mr. Munson noted that there were two double garages on the property, and that staff had requested that the personal items on the property be stored in those garages; however, no action had been taken to-date.

Mr. Munson noted that proposed abatement cost involved disposal of junk/debris estimated in the amount of $500; with no cost for impounding the four vehicles.  

Discussion included costs to the vehicle owners for impounding and retrieval at approximately $200-$250 per vehicle; staff’s process to placard the vehicles with a seven day notice prior to impounding them, with staff advising that the sons apparently live at the property; and admission by the property owner that they did not have money available to dispose of the junk and debris.

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

Roe moved, Klausing seconded, directing staff to abate the public nuisance violation at 3076 Woodbridge, by hiring a general contractor to remove the junk/debris and schedule the impounding of the four vehicles; as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 15, 2009, at an estimated cost of approximately $500; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all actual and administrative costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the abatement.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

c.                  Approve Request to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2992 Victoria Street

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the request to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation as detailed in the staff report dated June 15, 2009; providing an update on the property as of today; with code violations related to a tent-type garage in the rear yard, and a gravel driveway extension, both violations of City Code.  Mr. Munson noted that the property owner had requested an extension until Spring of 2009 to remove the tent structure and to cover or remove the driveway expansion; however, an inspection on June 2, 2009 revealed that the violations had not been corrected.

Discussion included staff’s rationale for not handling this as an abatement, based on the personal items stored in the tent, and liability issues for the City to move and store those items; while the driveway could be handled through abatement.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that handling this through a Ramsey County Court citation as too harsh, when the driveway could be handled as an abatement, noting that even if the property owner corrected the violations, they could face court costs and a criminal citation on their record.

Mayor Klausing noted that, while the driveway could be addressed as an abatement, the City Council still needed to address the temporary garage; and opined that as long as a Court Citation was requested for the garage issue and personal items, the driveway issue may as well be included in the Citation.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that design standards were insufficient to send to court.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the requested action and recognized staff’s perspective, that the tent contained personal property; and obligations of the City to ensure the security of personal property if removed by the City.  Councilmember Roe noted that this violation had existed for over a year, and was a clear violation of City Code; and opined that as long as the garage was being handled through the court, it made sense to include the driveway to keep the process as clear as possible.

Roe moved, Klausing seconded, directing staff to proceed with issuance of a Ramsey Court Citation to the property owner at 2992 Victoria Street to ensure abatement of public nuisance violations, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 15, 2009.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that the City Council should ensure parallel enforcement for commercial properties; and asked that her fellow Councilmembers consider such action.

Councilmember Roe opined that the City had a confirmed history of enforcing code violations for commercial, as well as residential, properties.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

d.                 Approve Request to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 2174 Snelling Avenue

Permit Coordinator Don Munson reviewed the request to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for unresolved violations of City Code at 2174 Snelling Avenue, as detailed in the staff report dated June 15, 2009; providing an update on the property as of today; with code violations related to a placement of an inoperable and severely damaged vehicle in front of the law offices of Mr. Todd Young, directly under his advertising sign.  Mr. Munson advised that Mr. Young claims that the damaged vehicle is evidence and refuses to move it, with the client having died in the vehicle and the insurance company no longer interested in storing the vehicle.  Mr. Munson advised that staff had received a number of complaints; and had sought advise of the of the City’s Attorney, who had recommended that the City not impound the vehicle, but require that Mr. Young remove it.

Mr. Young

Mr. Young provided a history of the vehicle and the death of the owner; assured the City Council that he was not using it for advertising; and offered to provide the date of birth and death of the vehicle owner.  Mr. Young advised that he was unaware of any complaints and had personally sought information from adjoining businesses as to whether they had complained; advising that they had denied filing any complaints. Mr. Young alleged that if someone was making complaint, they should tell him, rather than remaining nameless and faceless.

Mayor Klausing advised Mr. Young that the issue was not whether anyone had complained, but based on the damaged vehicle being in direct violation of City Code.  Mayor Klausing sought Mr. Young’s logic, or whether he was making a statement, or implying that the City was interfering with his First Amendment rights.

Mr. Young advised that, if the City thought the damaged vehicle was dangerous, a pier could be built to place the vehicle upon.  Mr. Young advised that he had talked to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to determine if they were interested in the car to use as a teaching instrument, but had yet to hear back from them.  Mr. Young advised that the sister of the vehicle remained traumatized after 18 months; and that American Family Insurance was no longer interested in storing the vehicle, and was going to tow it back to a former residence of the deceased; and he had taken the vehicle as evidence pending litigation.  Mr. Young advised that he could understand the concern if it were hazardous, but assured Councilmembers that it was not being used for advertising.

Mayor Klausing clarified that the issue of advertising or signing was not included in tonight’s requested action; however, storage of a junk vehicle in clear violation of City Code was the issue.  Mayor Klausing advised that people had brought it to his personal attention; and from his perspective, opined that the issue was a clear violation of City Code.  Mayor Klausing respectfully requested, if that would provide incentive to Mr. Young, that he remove the vehicle, that it presented a hazard, and was unsightly; and asked that Mr. Young store the vehicle elsewhere.

Mr. Young advised that he was awaiting a decision from MADD, or from the next of kin, before moving it.

Mayor Klausing sought a clear timeframe for Mr. Young to remove this violation; with Mr. Young unable to provide a timeframe. 

Mr. Young opined that a violation of City ordinance, under these circumstances, warranted issuing a Citation.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was something that could be worked out; and that if Mr. Young could find somewhere else to store the vehicle sooner than later, the violation could be corrected and the vehicle stored appropriately if it was to be used for evidence in future litigation.

Mayor Klausing noted Mr. Young’s previous comment about installing a pier upon which to place the vehicle, indicating that Mr. Young was considering long-term storage and continuing violation of City Code through such a suggestion.

Mr. Young stated that “this is not a cat and mouse situation; if you push me, I’ll push back.”

Mayor Klausing respectfully reiterated his request that Mr. Young assure Councilmembers that the vehicle would be removed by the end of this week, to avoid authorizing staff to issue a Court Citation.

Mr. Young advised that he had written five letters to the decedent’s sister, without response; that he wasn’t the owner of the personal property; and that he was awaiting a decision from MADD as to whether they were interested in the vehicle as a teaching instrument.

Mayor Klausing asked Mr. Young for his solution if none of those options provided a solution.

Mr. Young advised that he couldn’t comply with the Mayor’s suggested timeframe to remove the vehicle by the end of the week; but that he would hope to know something within ten days.

Mayor Klausing asked for a specific, defined timetable from Mr. Young’s perspective as an alternative to his suggested resolution by the end of this week.

Mr. Young advised that he should be able to resolve the issue within three weeks; and questioned whether the City had an impound lot where they could tow and store the vehicle.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of Mr. Young’s attempt to provide the best use for the vehicle; and suggested that if Mr. Young couldn’t find resolution in a reasonable amount of time, that the City could impound the vehicle rather than issue a Court Citation, since the vehicle didn’t belong to Mr. Young.

Mr. Young concurred with Councilmember Ihlan, that this was a reasonable solution.

Mr. Munson advised that staff had received complaints from businesses in the area, based on customer complaints those business owners had received, in addition to phone calls staff had received directly from citizens.

Councilmember Roe noted that this was often the case, that complaints were directed to City staff rather than those violating City Code.

Mr. Young reiterated his concern that the complaints were faceless.

Mayor Klausing asked that Mr. Young consider the Mayor personally as making this complaint; expressing concern that there was potential danger in the unresolved violation of City Code; that the City recognized Mr. Young’s dilemma; and asked that Mr. Young respect a discussion among Councilmembers at this time.

Staff provided a history of when the vehicle was first documented on the property (approximately one month ago); and when staff provided notice to Mr. Young (June 3, 2009) of the violations and this subsequent meeting.

Mr. Young concurred with the timing as outlined by staff.

Mayor Klausing suggested authorizing staff to issue a Ramsey Court Citation, allowing Mr. Young with two weeks to store the vehicle elsewhere or remove it from site himself.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of impounding the vehicle as a better solution allowing for removal of the vehicle immediately.

Mayor Klausing recognized Councilmember Ihlan’s suggestion; however, noted that the vehicle was evidence in pending litigation.

Mr. Young confirmed that the other driver was currently serving time; and that there was wrongful death litigation pending.

Mayor Klausing advised that this opened up liability issues if the City were to impound the vehicle.

City Attorney Scott Anderson advised that if, as indicated by Attorney Young, the vehicle was not his responsibility, and was evidence in future litigation; he recommended that the City not impound the vehicle, as it may face later claims that the City did something to destroy evidence in a trial; and that staff’s recommendation to act under the Court telling Mr. Young what to do with the vehicle was the most appropriate action for consideration.  Mr. Anderson advised that, based on a wrongful death case, the City could petition the court, however, noted that the City was not a party to that litigation, and if the City were to attempt to become involved, they would incur costs that wouldn’t normally be incurred through the Citation process, with the Prosecuting Attorney undertaking those expenses through their retainer with the City.  Mr. Anderson advised that staff’s recommendation was the most cost-effective and most assured resolution of the City Code violations.  Mr. Anderson asked if a Wrongful Death Trustee had been appointed.

Mr. Young responded affirmatively, that the decedent’s sister was the Trustee, but that she was still traumatized.  Mr. Young advised that if the City had an impound lot, he would pay to have the vehicle towed where it would be relatively safe, and the City would be helping a very distraught family.

Mayor Klausing stated that the evidence was currently being stored on the boulevard adjacent to the Target store; and questioned where the City could store it that would be any less secure.

City Attorney Anderson advised the City Council against taking responsibility for Mr. Young’s evidence by impounding it, without his research of further potential ramifications to the City; and noted that if Mr. Young were willing to pay to have the vehicle towed and impounded, he could surely find a safer storage place to keep it (i.e., a monthly storage locker)

Mr. Young responded that he would look into that option.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to proceed with issuance of a Ramsey County Court Citation to the property owner of 2174 Snelling Avenue to ensure abatement of public nuisance violations as soon as possible, and as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated June 15, 2009; with requested action amended to stipulate that the Citation be issued if no action was taken by Mr. Young in removing the vehicle within two weeks.

Mayor Klausing advised Mr. Young that he wanted to provide him time to resolve this; however, as a fellow attorney, noted that if Mr. Young couldn’t get hold of the Trustee to proceed with the lawsuit, he had to determine it as unclaimed property.  Mayor Klausing noted that Mr. Young, therefore, had bigger issues than this, however, he didn’t want to delay action until someone was hurt; and as an elected official, he didn’t want to have to answer to a parent or child injured due to this potential hazard.

Mr. Young asked that the City Council allow him until Monday, July 6, 2009 to get it moved.

Mayor Klausing agreed to this request provided it increased the chances that it would be gone, and amended his motion accordingly.

Councilmember Roe expressed reluctance to allow three weeks unless assurances were provided by Mr. Young; however, with the backstop of the Citation, he concurred with the request, suggesting that if Mr. Young could get it done before then, it would be better.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed confidence that it would get worked out.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

e.                 Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvements

City Engineer Debra Bloom reviewed the bids received approximately 16% below the original engineering plans projected in April.  Ms. Bloom noted, as part of the project, five bid alternates had been considered, including building removal (recommended for inclusion); streetscape detail (recommended as decorative concrete); lighting (LED recommended versus Inductive); remote telemetry system  (recommended for inclusion) for the storm water system; and additional landscaping on Mount Ridge Road (not recommended) and provided staff’s rationale for their recommendations, as detailed in the staff report. Ms. Bloom reviewed the proposed construction schedule to keep within federal timing requirements for funding.

Discussion among the City Council and staff included bid alternates to be included and deferred as a part of this project. 

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10717 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvements Project;” in the amount of $2,961,229.45 to Eureka Construction of Lakeville, MN.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion; noting that the funding in part would be coming from Metropolitan Transit as part of the park and ride facility construction.  Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustration that the bid award included building demolition of buildings that had been substandard for a long time, and should have been addressed much sooner.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City had not made any effort to enforce maintenance codes against these commercial properties, while they represented hazards and were unsightly in the extreme; and now the City was expending taxpayer dollars to demolish the buildings.  

Councilmember Roe opined that mechanisms were in place that would recoup most of the costs, with the exception of the City’s portion of the property.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:35 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:43 pm.

f.                   Authorize Contract for Construction Engineering Services for Twin Lakes Phase I Infrastructure Improvements

Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized the recommended award of contract to WSB and Associates for construction engineering services for Twin Lakes infrastructure improvements.  Staff noted that this firm had already been working on this project for over one year in finalizing plans and preparing bid documents; and while staff had researched other firms and to determine if an RFP was in order, given the unique design of this project, several firms declined and staff was recommending acting on the proposal from WSB.  Mr. Schwartz reviewed the typical costs of contractor schedules and hourly rates, and compared them to other firms, with WSP remaining typically on the lower end of those rates and very competitive and within construction industry standards.  Mr. Schwartz advised that it was staff’s intent, as their other projects were completed, to provide some field inspections and provide environmental oversight, thereby reducing the projected cost of $320,194 by $50 – 70,000.

Councilmember Roe noted on the Braun Intertec attachment to the Agreement, their terms and conditions, and asked if this agreement, in totality, was under the City’s terms and conditions.

Mr. Schwartz responded affirmatively, noting that Braun Intertec would serve as a subcontractor under WSB’s liability.

Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification on the environmental testing, and whether some of the preliminary work had already been completed.

Mr. Schwarz advised that some of the soil borings had been taken, the environmental testing was to provide someone on site with test equipment to detect odors and provide field quick tests to determine if material needed to be stockpiled or not; and that, while initial testing and soil borings had been done, staff had provided a “worst case scenario” for bidding purposes.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, authorization of a contract between the City of Roseville and WSB & Associates for construction engineering services for Twin Lakes Phase I Infrastructure Improvements in the amount of $320,194.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Ihlan; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

g.                 Approve Request by Bituminous Roadways for Conditional Use for Outdoor Storage of Aggregate Materials and Heavy Equipment at 2280 Walnut Street (PF09-010)

As previously noted, Mayor Klausing advised that this item had been removed from the Agenda due to the filing of a petition filed with the State of MN Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requesting further environmental review.  An opportunity for discussion and to allow public comment had been requested by Councilmember Ihlan.

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed the status of the application, under Minnesota State Statute, with no decision by the City allowed until the question of further environmental review had been determined.

Mayor Klausing asked that public comment be focused specifically to questions related to the process.

Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would like to also address expanding the area for mailed notice to residences and businesses.

Public Comment

                   Cal Ross, (by Highway 280)

Mr. Ross concurred with Councilmember Ihlan, advising that no one in his neighborhood had received notice other than word-of-mouth among citizens.  Mr. Ross expressed serious concerns related to health and safety of his neighborhood, given the potential emissions from this proposed facility, and asked that Phase I or Phase II studies be completed.  Mr. Ross referenced a facility operated by the applicant in Minneapolis, and opined that in this Phillips neighborhood, market values had seriously decreased; and questioned if the location of their asphalt plant was the cause.  Mr. Ross asked that the City Council vet health and real estate issues prior to considering approval.

                   Gary Grefenberg

For disclosure purposes, Mr. Grefenberg advised that he was the co-author of a pamphlet distributed to property owners within 1500 feet of this plan.  Mr. Grefenberg referenced discussions he’d had with an officer of the Bituminous Roadway corporation, who advised him that the firm was hoping to move forward with the more environmentally-safe warm process, rather than the hot process, but that it wasn’t certain.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that this was a critical issue in deciding whether the plant was acceptable.

Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation to Mr. Grefenberg for identifying himself as a co-author on the flyer, rather than distributing an anonymous flyer.  Mayor Klausing noted that he had not received a copy; with Mr. Grefenberg advising that he had e-mailed Councilmembers at their home addresses yesterday.

Mr. Grefenberg thanked Mr. Trudgeon and City staff for their cooperation in being open to the process and providing requested information.

Mayor Klausing asked staff to provide a brief explanation for the public of the EQB process to determine if further environmental review was necessary, with staff deferring to City Attorney Anderson..

City Attorney Anderson reviewed the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) purpose: to receive petitions requesting Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW’s) and determining their validity and required number of signatures (25); and assigning what governmental agency will serve as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) to conduct proceedings to determine if an EAW should be conducted, based on State Statute 4410, rules for environmental review.  Mr. Anderson advised that the two most likely RGU’s would either be the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) or the City of Roseville.

Councilmember Ihlan initiated discussions on how the City could provide better notice to affected neighborhoods, aside from them coming out to tonight’s meeting, on very short notice.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that she had received two phone messages at her home from concerned citizens, specifically advising that they had not been aware of the proposed project, and lived less than 1500’ from the project site.  Councilmember Ihlan, in her review of maps, suggested that City notice be mailed out within a reasonable radius, and offered her willingness to craft a motion to that effect. Councilmember Ihlan suggested that notice be provided to neighborhoods between Highway 280 and Cleveland Avenue, south to County Road B at a minimum; and to consider extending the notice even further into the residential area on the other side of Cleveland, and to include businesses (i.e., restaurants and other public establishments) nearby, as the plant would affect their employees and the public.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested further extending the notice perhaps up to County Road C on the north to alert as many people as possible.

Mayor Klausing asked Councilmember Ihlan to define what directive the City Council was to give to staff, as far as the purpose of the notice until the EQB had made a determination.

Councilmember Ihlan reviewed notice to-date for the Public Hearing held before the Planning Commission, and opined that it’s scope had been limited.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this proposal was for an asphalt plant, not just outdoor storage of equipment and aggregate, and was a permanent, not temporary facility.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the public needed to know where they could find additional information on the proposal.

Mayor Klausing noted that State Statute currently required a 350’ notice area of the subject property, and the City Council, in order to be more inclusive and provide broader notice, had expanded policy that notice area be 500’ from the subject property.  Mayor Klausing noted that there was a cost to provide mailed notice, in addition to diminishing returns, as the notice area expanded further from a project area.  Mayor Klausing opined that the more notices people received, the less impact the notices would have, and would become contrary to the purpose of notification.  Mayor Klausing further opined that, from his perspective when people came before the courts or a government agency, that all be treated consistently; and that the standard not be constantly shifting or become arbitrary.  Mayor Klausing was supportive of providing notice outside the current notice area for this project, noting the need for residents along St. Croix Street, to ensure citizens are aware of the process; however, he suggested that further notice be held until the City had more information available; but supported notice within 2000’ southwest of the subject property.

Steve Bennett, 2185 St. Croix Street

Mr. Bennett expressed concern that the City Council couldn’t determine when something had a larger impact on families and homes than normal; opining that this project was proposing to cook asphalt in their backyard, and that it had more impact than a shopping center.  Mr. Bennett opined that the City needed to use some common sense with this situation, and not subject citizens to toxic materials on a daily basis, and that the City needed to find an approach to determine what was hazardous and what wasn’t.  Mr. Bennett opined this was about airborne matter, and while the application was for outdoor storage, without that storage there would be no asphalt plant.

Mayor Klausing reiterated his attempt to define how to determine notice area; and opined that common sense was different for different people, citing the example that high density housing may have an impact on someone else’s property, and his desire to treat all people fairly.  Mayor Klausing clarified the action before the City Council.

Councilmember Roe advised that he had toured and researched other asphalt plants, noting that this use was different than typical industrial uses, with distinct permitting processes in other jurisdictions for this wider use.  Councilmember Roe noted that, had outdoor storage not been needed, no notice would have been required, and no City Council action, as this was a permitted use under current City Code.  Councilmember Roe opined that this was a more serious concern to him, that this was a permitted use under State Statute and City Code.  In terms of notification, Councilmember Roe noted that staff was following Council directive on notice area; and further noted that, prior to changing notification area to 500’, he had advocated notice based on the longest side of the property, and with this property length at 1,350’, affected property owners would have received notice. 

Mayor Klausing refocused discussion on the type of notice proposed with no Public Hearing scheduled at this time.  Mayor Klausing noted that, while a general information letter could be provided, he suggested that notice be held until the EQB determines if the City is the RGU; and then at that time providing mailed notice to those interested.  Mayor Klausing noted the need to provide staff with clear direction.

Councilmember Johnson noted that while a policy is in place, there were obvious flaws and room for improvement in that policy.  Councilmember Johnson concurred that, in a more transparent policy, people within 2000’ should have been noticed; and that further discussion needed to be held by the City Council to address future issues such as this and other potential scenarios  However, Councilmember Johnson opined that such a policy conversation couldn’t happen in a responsible fashion tonight; but had no clear suggestion on what that notice should say at this juncture.

Mayor Klausing noted that notification usually related to some type of action (i.e., Public Hearing, City Council action); for a particular type of meeting; and suggested additional public comment tonight, with further City Council discussion at a subsequent meeting.

Resident from  St. Croix Street

He noted that there were 300 homes south of Highway 36, and opined that when he walked along their service road, he could smell the Tasty Bakery Company beyond County Road C, and questioned how much more odor would be obvious from this plant located much closer.  He  expressed concern that his neighborhood would be able to see and smell the plant; and asked that his government officials make the assumption for its citizens that they chose not to be under that toxic cloud.  He advised that residents wanted their City to be greener, cleaner and brighter, creating a better neighborhood. He suggested that notice be provided to anyone within a 5,000’ radius of the plant.

Gary Grefenberg

Mr. Grefenberg provided a Google map, showing a 2000’ radius from a portion of the site, and suggested that such a radius be used for notice.  Mr. Grefenberg encouraged the Planning Commission, in their review of zoning codes and their recommendations to the City Council, to discuss current notification requirements and adopt a more sophisticated measure for notice.

Councilmember Ihlan suggested a radius approach, similar to that proposed by Mr. Grefenberg, at a minimum to be bounded by Highway 36, County Road B and Cleveland Avenue, and including Fairway Drive to the Golf Course, and potentially the other side as well.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that she was open to expanding the notice even further to cover businesses to the north.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested the notice could provide a description of the proposed permanent asphalt plant at the specific site; dates of future meetings; where to find additional information on the website and how to determine when future public meetings were being held.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would agree to take such action at tonight’s meeting as a first step to further notify the public

Councilmember Ihlan opined that there was no need to wait for another meeting to provide notice to a broader radius; and expressed frustration that the City Council was quibbling about minor details when the main and larger issue was about the potential construction of an asphalt plant by residential neighborhoods and businesses.

Mayor Klausing opined that he had no problem with that potential notification area; however, he expressed concern that a motion was being put together on the fly without a firm proposal of where the notice goes, and what decisions were proposed.  Mayor Klausing reiterated that, at this time, the EQB had not determined the RGU, and that notice may be premature until they made that determination.  Mayor Klausing opined that their determination seemed like important information to provide to the public in a pending notice; rather than copying the public on the application as submitted, but subsequently pulled from consideration at this time.  Mayor Klausing opined that the map as suggested by Mr. Grefenberg seemed to provide a rational notice area, but stressed that he would like to wait to provide notice until the City had additional information to share.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the proposal to build a permanent asphalt plant was a known, and that the City could provide links to other areas for information, to alert citizens to what was proposed in their back yards.

Councilmember Roe opined that it was reasonable to wait to provide notice until the EQB made a determination, and whether the applicant intended to pursue their application.  Councilmember Roe suggested that the City consider notice to a radius of the intersection of County Road B and Cleveland Avenue, but not until the City knew what the notice should include, to avoid further agitation without all the facts becoming available.  Councilmember Roe noted that the application was at a stalemate at this time, and that it was reasonable to wait to send out notices until a few more things in the process became known.

Steve Bennett

Mr. Bennett expressed concern that this application would fly under the radar and that the public would not receive sufficient notice in a timely manner.

Mayor Klausing assured Mr. Bennett that they would receive proper notice as discussed at tonight’s meeting.

Ihlan moved, Klausing seconded, that public notice be provided to an area including Highway 36, Highway 280, County Road C, Cleveland Avenue; and that mailed notice contain a description of the proposal to build a permanent asphalt plant at the specified location; and that the notice should also provide a link to the City’s website for further information and contact information to receive information of future public meetings, or if and when the application had been withdrawn.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion, opining that if action was not taken tonight, it wouldn’t happen.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, an amendment to the motion to defer mailed notice until a determination is provided by the EQB as to the RGU; and stipulating that the City Council would take no action until notice had been provided to residents.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the amendment to the motion; opining that it seemed reasonable, and assured the public that no City Council action would be taken until the public was adequately noticed.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the amendment, opining that the public couldn’t be guaranteed of sufficient notice; and that this was not open government.

Councilmember Roe opined that he had spent hours reviewing and researching this proposed use, and expressed his concern in being characterized so negatively by Councilmember Ihlan.  Councilmember Roe opined that the amendment made sense, noting that the City didn’t notify people of an application for any other land use decision until a Public Hearing was scheduled, noting the possibility that this and/or any application can be withdrawn before.

Unidentified Female Speaker

The speaker referenced previous crematorium issues and processes, seeking to provide an analogy for this proposed use. 

Mayor Klausing asked the recording secretary to read back his motion to amend.  He then clarified the motion to add that the city notice be provided, at a minimum, 14 days before any City action.  Councilmember Roe, as seconder, supported that change.

Roll Call (Amendment)

Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

Roll Call (Original Motion as amended)

Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

h.                 Approve Acquisition of Portions of Property located at 2690 Cleveland Avenue and 1947 County Road C for Road and Construction Purposes

This action is as a result of discussions held during Closed Executive Session.  City Attorney Eric Quiring was present for this discussion.

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed a draft Settlement Agreement in Lieu of Condemnation between the City of Roseville and Roseville Acquisitions, LLC, for purchase of properties for the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project and proposed settlement of eminent domain action for properties located at 2690 Cleveland Avenue and 1947 County Road C. Staff recommended settlement as detailed in the draft Agreement as presented, and made available to the public.

Councilmember Ihlan clarified that the purchase price was greater than the appraised value of the property.

Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that the purchase price was $25,000 above the appraised value for both properties.

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, the Settlement Agreement in Lieu of Condemnation between the City of Roseville and Roseville Acquisitions, LLC, as presented, for acquisition of portions of the property located at 2690 Cleveland Avenue and 1947 County Road C for Phase I of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project, in the total amount of $2,107,700. 

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that this acquisition would allow right-of-way property to move forward; and that it was a reasonable settlement as detailed in the Settlement Agreement.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion; opining that it was not a good deal from the City’s perspective, but it was a good deal from the seller’s perspective.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City could choose to use an open, transparent Eminent Domain process, rather than making a private deal at more than the appraised value of the property with nothing in exchange for that settlement.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that, in the revised Settlement Agreement, the City would pay for demolition of several buildings on the road right-of-way, due to the inaction and failure to enforce the City’s property maintenance code, even though that enforcement was zealously enforced against residential properties.  Councilmember Ihlan further noted that because of those uncorrected maintenance violations on the property; and the City ended up paying for road right-of-way and demolition of worthless buildings; and that there was no effort in the Settlement Agreement to rectify those outstanding maintenance violations; and that the City was agreeing to take the property “as is” with the seller making no representation on environmental matters of intended uses; and the taxpayers becoming liable for those environmental issues.  Councilmember Ihlan noted her concern that there was nothing in the Agreement holding the property owner or other responsible property owners to pay for those costs; and that this Agreement didn’t protect the City’s interests, and that it was foolish for the City to agree to this, when they could choose the option of condemnation, or insist that the seller share in the environmental and demolition costs. 

Mayor Klausing, expressing all due respect to Councilmember Ihlan, clarified that while Eminent Domain may be an option, and given consideration to demolition and environment issues, as per the advice of the City Attorney, the City would still be responsible for demolition based on their need to construct the roadway.  Mayor Klausing questioned the rationale in insisting that the property owner make improvements to the building, thus making it more valuable, and more expensive for the citizens to acquire.  Mayor Klausing opined that this provided an opportunity to move forward with this option.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion.

Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her preference that the seller agree in writing to whatever policy the City determined for their contribution to environmental clean up and why can’t we get seller to agree in writing to abide by whatever policy City sets up to contribute to environmental clean up for future enforcement.

Councilmember Roe questioned if this was suggested as part of the City’s request for terms of condemnation.

Councilmember Ihlan clarified that she was referencing this Settlement Agreement.

Councilmember Roe noted that an alternative to this Agreement meant condemnation, and questioned how such a condition could be obtained in writing.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the results of negotiations going on behind closed doors was the proposed $25,000 purchase price over the property’s appraised value to avoid condemnation costs; and still not protecting the City from environmental clean-up costs.  Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her opinion that if the City had enforced its property code in the Twin Lakes area, it would have put pressure on the property owners to comply with maintenance of the buildings or demolish them at their expense, not the City’s.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that this was just common sense, and due to the City failing to act on enforcing their property code, it had placed taxpayers in this position; and opined that the rest of the City Council shouldn’t try to sell this to citizens as a good deal.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion; and opined that the least expensive approach may have been for the property owner to do the minimum; and that their demolishing the buildings may not have been the defined result.  Councilmember Roe clarified that the City Council didn’t want to discourage property owners from keeping their buildings up to code; however, opined that it may have worked out in the City’s best interests in this case.  Councilmember Roe further opined that, if the City was to choose the alternative of going through condemnation proceedings, there were no protections as preferred by Councilmember Ihlan, which provided no incentive to the property owner to agree to those protections in this proposed agreement.

Roll Call

Ayes: Johnson; Roe; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

a.                 Twin Lakes Code Enforcement Report

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a status update of those properties in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area who had complied to recent public nuisances issues, those who had yet to comply, and the stages of compliance on some of those properties not yet in compliance, but in the process of obtaining quotes for compliance. Mr. Trudgeon noted that property owners had been encouraged by the City’s commitment to begin improvements in the area; and as a result, several other buildings were slated for demolition by their owners.

Discussion included timeframe for demolition based on review and award of bids by the City Council tonight after which time property owners will be able to establish firmer dates for compliance.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that residential property owners did not receive 30-60-or 90 days to comply, but were threatened with abatement or Court Citation within a much shorter timeframe; and suggested that commercial properties should be held to a consistent process as well in order to hold them accountable. 

Mayor Klausing noted that properties only come before the City Council when the property owner isn’t being cooperative with the City, and presumed that this would be consistent for commercial properties as well if they were not being cooperative.

Councilmember Ihlan noted that she had conveyed complaints from citizens since March of this year related to the Twin Lakes properties; and while she expressed gratitude that progress was being made, asked for a consistent process; asking that staff return to the City Council at their next meeting seeking authorization for abatement or Court Citation for these properties as well.

Mr. Trudgeon noted that the issue wasn’t necessarily one of demolition, and if the City forced corrections, the current graffiti on buildings would simply be painted over, and buildings secured; and they would become a prime target for additional tagging activity.  Mr. Trudgeon recommended that a date certain be set (i.e., August 31, 2009) and to hold off further action until that point, and if not demolished, the City would follow up with further action.

No action taken.

b.                 Discuss 2010 Legislative Impacts and Property Values

Acting City Manager/Finance Director Chris Miller provided a quick briefing on legislative impacts from the most recent session.

Discussion included trending of property values for 2010 based on aggregate information, and not specific to Roseville at this time; indications that Roseville’s tax base will decline in 2010 by approximately three percent at a minimum, but that should be getting close to a base line soon; recognizing that this didn’t necessarily mean less taxes would be received, depending on the 2010 levy established and local tax rates; and comparable situations in surrounding communities similar to that of Roseville.

Further discussion included impacts of TIF decertification (Center Pointe) at the end of 2009, and potential increase in the City’s tax base of approximately 0.25% of the City’s $4.5 billion of tax base; assessor’s value information and reductions in medium assessed values of an average single-family home in Ramsey County from $237,000 to $224,000 this year; and perspectives in reviewing data projections.

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:57 pm.