City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

July 20, 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 July:   Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson and Klausing)

City Attorney Jay Squires was also present.

Closed Executive Session – Discuss Labor Relations

Mayor Klausing reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session related to labor negotiations strategy in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.01; and Minnesota Statute 13D.05, respectively, with the meeting audio taped for future reference. 

Roe moved, Johnson seconded, recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:03 pm, in accordance with Minnesota Statute, 13D.01, for the City Council, staff and legal counsel to discuss labor relations.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Recess

Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 6:44 pm and reconvened at approximately 6:45 pm in Regular Session. 

2.         Approve Agenda

By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented.

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 (HRA) Report

Mayor Klausing reminded citizens of the upcoming series of four community meetings as part of the continuation of Imagine Roseville 2025, to discuss various city issues and as a part of the process in developing future budgets and prioritizing City programs and services.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of July 13, 2009 Regular Meeting

Pending additional revisions to the minutes in addition to those previously noted for resubmission, there was no action taken on the meeting minutes of the July 13, 2009 Regular Meeting.

Corrections:

§         Page 9, Lines 31-33 (Ihlan)

Clarify that the twenty foot language designation remains.

§         Page 22, entire section (Ihlan)

Clarify that Councilmembers Pust and Ihlan comments were not against rezoning, but related to changes to comprehensive plan designations.

7.                 Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

On behalf of the City Council, staff and the community, Councilmember Johnson expressed appreciation to all parties for their donations to the City’s Police Department.

a.                 Approve Payments

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

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve Business Licenses

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

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

c.                  Set August 10, 2009 Public Hearing for Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis, LLC On-Sale Wine and on On-Sale 3.2 Liquor License Application at 2100 Snelling Avenue N

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval to set a public hearing for the On-Sale Wine and an On-Sale 3.2 Liquor License, for Smashburger Acquisition-Minneapolis, LLC to be held on August 10, 2009.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

d.                 Accept Second Quarter Financial Report

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, acceptance of the second quarter financial report as presented.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

e.                 Adopt a Resolution Requesting Minnesota Green Corps Members

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, authorizing staff to send a letter from the Mayor on behalf of the City supporting application and indicating the City’s commitment to host two MN GreenCorps members.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Councilmember Roe noted an error on line 20 of the draft resolution that should clearly designate the MPCA as the agency.

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10735 entitled, “Minnesota GreenCorps;” indicating the City’s support for application to host two MN GreenCorps members and the City’s ongoing commitment to reducing our carbon footprint; as amended.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

f.                   Accept the Target Corporation Donation for National Night Out

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, acceptance of the donation from Target Corporation in the amount of $500 to the City Police Department to purchase supplies for the 2009 National Night Out Program.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

g.                 Accept Multiple Donations to the Police Department

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, acceptance of donations from Residential mortgage, OptionCare, and the Teamsters, to the City Police Department in a total amount of $400.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

h.                 Accept Roseville Skating Center 2008 Bonding Project Update

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, acceptance of the Roseville Skating Center 2008 Bonding Project Update as presented.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

i.                    Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for 2009 Contract C in the amount of $343,930 to Lametti & Sons, Inc. of Hugo, MN

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10736 entitled, Resolution Awarding Bids for 2009 Contract C;” awarding bid to Lametti & Sons, Inc., of Hugo, MN, in an amount not to exceed $343,930.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

10.             Presentations

11.             Public Hearings

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.                 Approve City Abatement for Code Violations at 3065 Sandy Hook Drive

Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated July 20, 2009; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family property, with a building permit previously issued for remodeling the home; but currently all work having ceased and the property for sale.  Mr. Munson advised that the home is tentatively sold with the prospective buyer intending to finish the project, but no guarantee to-date that the sale will be finalized.  Mr. Munson suggested short-term abatement costs are estimated at $25,000.

Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the public nuisance violations at 3065 Sandy Hook Drive if repairs to the home are not substantially completed by September 15, 2009.

Public Comment

Mark Larson, neighbor at 3020 Sandy Hook Drive

Mr. Larson expressed his substantial concerns with the proposed abatement, opining that it would be “putting a band aid on a major wound.”  Mr. Larson alleged that there were additional interior structural issues not readily seen from exterior photos.  Mr. Larson noted when the home had been occupied, its sump pumps were continually operating, which could be attributed to where the home had been constructed on the shores of Lake Owasso, too close to the lake with improper grading.  Mr. Larson advised that other adjoining neighbors shared these concerns; and asked that the City Council delay any abatement action on this property to determine if a sale of the home to a responsible developer or someone interested in a long-range solution to a serious problem came to fruition, or the individual currently controlling the property took action to complete renovations.  Mr. Larson opined that this person, Mr. Larry Lee, was a sophisticated business man active in the real estate field, and knew he was sitting on this asset.  Mr. Larson advised that he and other neighbors had toured the home with a realtor since it had been vacated, and there appeared to be a mold issue in the home. 

Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and Mr. Larson included rationale in the City stalling completion of the exterior renovations that would only further degrade interior issues; benefits to the neighborhood with delayed or immediate action; delaying action to provide incentive to any purchaser of the property as part of their liability rather than using public dollars; confirmation that Mr. Larson himself was not a prospective purchaser of the home; offers to-date on the property; and status of the construction of the dormer.

Mayor Klausing opined that delaying action didn’t seem to serve a benefit to the community or the neighborhood, and allowed the home to further deteriorate.

Councilmember Roe concurred with Mayor Klausing’s comments; opining that if nothing was done, the liability remained for the seller or potential buyers; and that the home could not continue to remain as is over the winter months; but that the abatement authorization as requested by staff provided incentive for a transaction to take place before staff sought abatement action, and absent that, he expressed concern that a deal would be finalized in the current housing market.

Councilmember Ihlan concurred that doing nothing would mean nothing would happen; and suggested that staff be directed to abate conditions if repairs were not made by September 15, 2009, or if the property was not sold by then, or was slated for demolition.

Mr. Munson clarified, at the request of Mayor Klausing, that the dormer had been completed except for roofing and siding; and from exterior inspections, staff had been aware of no obvious structural issues; however, advised that staff would seek permission for an interior inspection to further investigate any structural issues.  Mr. Munson noted that mold issues could be remediated and repaired.

Further discussion included potential status of any pending sales of the property; process if demolition was seriously considered by any potential buyer; and timing of any potential purchase related to proposed abatement.

Mr. Munson noted that staff would work with any buyer on a new building permit based on plans submitted, and as long as progress was indicated, would defer abatement accordingly.

Councilmember Johnson opined that there appeared to be more liability to the neighborhood in allowing the existing lack of completion to remain over the winter.

Councilmember Pust expressed concern that only part of the problem appeared to be considered for resolution, and suggested that staff inspect the interior of the property as well.

Mayor Klausing cautioned Councilmembers from making assumptions on the structural soundness of the building without the expertise of a qualified engineer; and opined that, unless there was an obvious reason for demolition, those assumptions were premature.

Mr. Munson advised that staff would seek to inspect the interior of the building; however, noted that staff would not remediate any mold, if found, as this would be a responsibility of the homeowner.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, directing staff to abate the remaining public nuisance violation(s) at 3065 Sandy Hook Drive by hiring a general contractor to reroof the entire structure; repair, replace and paint portions of soffits, fascia, and siding, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated July 20, 2009, if progress toward remediation has not been completed by September 15, 2009, at an estimated cost of approximately $25,000; 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.

Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, opining that it allows assurance for the community and neighbors of the City’s seriousness regarding code compliance; while offering the City options in this specific situation.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

Mr. Larson commended staff for their proactive and immediate response to his notification of this situation; and opined that he had never seen public authorities move forward as quickly as this process has.

b.                 Award the Sale of the 2009 Refunding Bonds

Finance Director Chris Miller introduced Ms. Terry Heaton from Springsted, the City’s financial consultant for the two most recent bond issues; noting that results had been very favorable for the City.

Mr. Miller distributed, as bench handouts, bid tabulations of each respective issue.

Ms. Heaton reviewed specifics of each bond issue; number of bids received; confirmation by Standard and Poors of the City’s bond rating status (AA); recognition and improved assessment opinion of Roseville’s financial management practices at the highest level of strong, supported by the City’s long-range (10-year) Capital Improvement Program and its projects, providing confidence in the marketplace of the City’s sound management techniques and indicating top quality credit in that marketplace.

Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation for the favorable ratings and cost savings; and specifically recognized Mr. Miller for his financial management expertise.

Councilmember Roe sought clarification on the Westwood Village I’s prepayment and objection period related to the bond issue.

Mr. Miller noted that the objection period remained in place through July 23, 2009; however, noted that sufficient prepayments had been received, and insufficient objections were forthcoming, that would derail the project; and assured Councilmembers that it was prudent to move forward.  Mr. Miller advised that any prepayments yet received would be deposited into the debt service fund for future debt service payments.

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10737 entitled, “Resolution Accepting Proposal on the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $1,105,000 General Obligation Refunding Improvement Bonds, Series 2009B, Providing for their Issuance and Pledging for the Security Thereof Special Assessments and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof.”

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Ihlan; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: None.

c.                  Award the Sale of the 2009 Housing Revenue Bonds for Westwood Village I

Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10738 entitled, “Resolution Accepting Proposal on the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $1,155,000 Taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Bonds, Series 2009A, and Pledging for the Security Thereof Tax Increments.

Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be voting against the motion for several policy reasons; notably that the bonds would be for repairs to private property without a City policy in place of analysis to address future requests for similar funding, setting a bad precedent; and issuing the bonds requires prepayment now or, for those unable to prepay, required fees for a term of 15 years, creating potential financial hardship issues, difficulty in selling properties, or potential defaults of those owners in the future.

Councilmember Roe noted that the original request from the homeowner’s association at this complex was based on their inability to make improvements by going to the private marketplace, thus their request for an HIA in accordance with State provisions.

Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

a.                 Budgeting for Outcomes Update

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized previous City Council action authorizing the hiring of Springsted Financial Advisors in calculating true costs of the City’s property tax-supported programs as a precursor to a budget priority process.  Mr. Miller anticipated that this study would be completed and presented to the City Council at their August 10, 2009 meeting, and would coincide with the upcoming community meetings to provide the City Council and staff with direction to allocate recourses in the City Manager-recommended budget and City Council priorities. 

Mr. Miller asked that Councilmembers set aside several times to meet, either formally in a City Council setting or more informally in a work session setting, exclusively for a discussion of program costs and analyses and to consider public comments.  Mr. Miller noted that the City Council would be asked, at their September 14, 2009 regular meeting, to set a preliminary budget and levy for 2010.

After a brief discussion, it was Council consensus that individual Councilmembers provide the City’s Administrative Assistant with available dates and times to coordinate those meetings; with the City’s Department Heads available for that meeting as well.  Councilmembers expressed a preference for weekday evening versus weekend meetings.

b.                 Discussion of Environmental Cost Recovery within the Twin Lakes Area

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided a written memorandum from Attorney Larry Espel dated December 17, 2007, describing federal and state laws allowing for third parties to seek reimbursement for environmental assessment and remediation activities from responsible parties causing the contamination; and staff’s analysis dated July 20, 2009.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that he had reviewed City files and available materials for City Council discussion.  Mr. Trudgeon noted the problem in assessment and remediation since the City did not have ownership of much property other than that acquired, or to be acquired, for rights-of-way purposes, without seeking property owner permission to assess their properties, and the lack of support of those owners in allowing the City to perform such an assessment.

Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included additional costs to pursue factual information once a chain of title for each specific property had been determined; difficulties in identifying past property owners creating the rationale for MPCA funding and grant programs for property clean-up based on public benefit in removing contaminants; the City’s creation of the Hazardous Substance Sub-District for use of TIF funds for environmental contamination clean up; and the need for outside expertise to provide further analysis.

Further discussion included Statute of Limitations for recovery of funds for clean –up (addressed in Attorney Espel’s letter, page five).

Councilmember Ihlan opined that additional information, identification of the type, and determination of the extent of contaminants was obviously needed.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that, to-date, the City had been prepared to use public monies to pay for clean-up, specifically on Roseville Properties parcels, and that while this may be prudent upfront, she would like those having polluted the land to pay for its clean up.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that it was imperative that private parties and landowners be identified and would be well worth the City’s investment to research, while taking steps to preserve those claims to avoid any potential future collection from those responsible parties.  Councilmember Ihlan recognized that this research would take time and money; however, she opined that the end result would provide a good investment of public dollars to allow recovery of substantially more monies for environmental remediation.

Councilmember Johnson sought clarification on what criteria would be used for those former property owners/users unable to be identified and held accountable compared to those easily identified, and payment by future developers as a cost of the land.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that a legal analysis of potential claims was necessary; otherwise the City would be spending public monies to recover costs.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested use of funds currently being expended in building infrastructure, or using TIF monies for an investigative report.

Mayor Klausing concurred to the extent that responsible parties could be identified; however, he noted that the problem appeared to be to hire an environmental consultant to examine available reports to-date; and then an inspection of properties to determine contaminants, then identifying who contributed to that contamination.  Mayor Klausing asked how Councilmembers proposed to accomplish on-site inspections and soil borings on private properties.

Councilmember Johnson suggested that, as property developed, that analysis would seem to be a natural process in development moving forward without City involvement.

Mayor Klausing concurred, noting that it would depend on the nature of development and how much clean up was required.

Councilmember Pust noted that the previous Council request for more information that had been provided by staff via the potential causes of action.  Councilmember Pust opined that the need remained for an analysis of who the property owners were over time, and that this information was available through title searches on each respective property and whether those previous owners remained viable resources for financial recovery, and could be achieved by requesting public records.

Councilmember Roe concurred with Councilmember Pust; however, noted that the legal opinion as outlined was for information purposes only, and not pursuing further environmental issues.  Councilmember Roe opined that, as a particular development moved forward, an environmental review and past ownership history would be helpful; however, he questioned whether researching this information would be cost-effective all at once, or based on a more project-specific need.  Councilmember Roe suggested researching preliminary information on property ownership of specific parcels; and a summary of environmental conditions if available.

Councilmember Pust noted the existence of some reports made available to the City; however suggested that at the time the property is developed, title work would be completed by the developer and would not be a cost to be borne by the City, nor needing to be completed at this time.  Councilmember Pust opined that the only action needed by the City was to write into their processes that they be allowed access to those title records, and to make that language a condition to future developer agreements. 

Councilmember Ihlan referenced page 8 of the attorney memo laying out possible next steps; and focused on #1.a and b in determining responsible parties past and present; and suggested hiring someone to perform this environmental review at a cost not to exceed $20 – 40,000 in order to protect claims going forward and leverage people to share environmental information.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was a minimal cost and should be accomplished now before the City was in the midst of a proposed development.

City Attorney Jay Squires noted that the City wore two hats: regulatory and/or owner for properties as development occurred in Twin Lakes.  Attorney Squires provided additional detail the City played based on these respective roles; the regulatory role of the City requiring developers to investigate and remediate environmental issues at their cost, with the City unconcerned about how, but with the final goal of clean property; and options the City needed to consider when they wore the ownership hat and determining the depth and nature of contamination and possible avenues for recovery of costs for clean up of those contaminants.  Attorney Squires used the example of the Mounds View School District Office site; and opined that, while it would be good to have no remaining contamination on any property in the Twin Lakes area, the question was whether it was appropriate for the City to spend money now, or on a project by project basis, requiring that information be provided and contamination resolved on those properties not acquired by the City.

Councilmember Roe clarified, in a regulatory role with a private developer responsible for clean up, if they requested funds through the Hazardous Substance District and the City requested grant funds on their behalf, then the City would be involved, and may represent a situation when the City wasn’t simply an owner or serving in a regulatory role.

Mayor Klausing opined that this still wouldn’t change Attorney Squires’ underlying point, that the role the City played was crucial to its involvement; and that research on the chain of title not be pursued unless the City was going to develop the property or was responding to a development request.

Councilmember Roe concurred with Mayor Klausing’s observation; however, he recognized Councilmember Ihlan’s perspective in wanting to know what you were getting into, and to reasonably anticipate TIF and/or grant funding; opining that it may be reasonable to know that information upfront.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that a potential third role of the City was for proposed developments coupled with requests for public subsidy, no matter their source; and determining how the City responded to future requests after they knew what potential contaminants were indicated.

Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of title research, and establishing a chain of title for those properties the City has acquired; however, he opined that, when property was owned by private parties, questioned whether it was appropriate for the City to step in to test their land for pollution without a viable development indicated.

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the City start with those properties being acquired for rights-of-way or those most likely to be developed.

Mr. Trudgeon noted that the right-of-way for Mount Ridge Road touched upon almost every parcel from County Road C-2 to the PIK Terminal; and noted that the main contamination to-date appeared to be on the PIK and Roseville Properties parcels; and anticipated that financial assistance for environmental clean up would be sought.

Councilmember Roe questioned whether the City’s acquisition of land for rights-of-way allowed investigation of the remainder of the private property.

Councilmember Pust expressed her interest in the concept put forth by Councilmember Ihlan; however, referenced language in the first paragraph of page 8 of Attorney Espel’s memorandum, lack of information under 1.a, and a lack of clear definition as to what an environmental consultant is being requested to provide.  Councilmember Pust opined that the language referenced by Councilmember Ihlan for action on page 8, #1.a and b, didn’t serve the intent, and that the requested action of Councilmember Ihlan was premature at this time without further definition.

Mayor Klausing noted the availability of environmental reports as part of earlier litigation and settlement agreements.  Mayor Klausing opined that Councilmember Ihlan’s request made sense in the terms of parcels the City may acquire or were in a position to develop them as an owner; however, expressed his concern in attempting to determine the City’s role on undeveloped parcels or the City’s potential future ownership, whether the property would be developed privately, lack of access to the property without owner consent, and complications in identifying past and present chain of title ownership. 

Discussion ensued regarding potential parcels to be acquired for right-of-way; practical considerations in the property acquisition process;  soil borings done to-date along the right-of-way acquisition area; examination to-date of available environmental analyses; refining level of exposure for the City on future acquisitions; and then accuracy of environmental analyses to-date.

Mayor Klausing summarized that it was Council consensus to more proactively determine responsible persons on properties the City anticipated acquiring for right-of-way purposes; the need to seek outside consultant expertise to determine potential costs.  Staff was requested to hold preliminary discussions with consultants who could provide expertise in reviewing available reports to-date; staff’s analysis of ownership on those properties already acquired for rights-of-way; and the need to amend documentation to provide that costs for environmental remediation would become part of the allocation costs for each development.

c.                  Discussion regarding Hazardous Building Law

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon led a discussion on the State of MN Hazardous Building Law, and provided a memorandum dated April 3, 2009 by the City Attorney, detailing options for the City based on that law, in addition to information from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) regarding hazardous buildings. Mr. Trudgeon provided an update on those buildings within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area already demolished, those in process, and those scheduled for demolition; in addition to those blighted buildings remaining and their specific state of repair.

Discussion included ongoing security of those buildings in the process of being demolished; graffiti remediation; verification of demolition permits to-date; definition of hazardous buildings (page 15 of the LMC document); inspections by staff of exteriors of buildings and required permission from property owners for interior inspections; and guidance of previous court cases related to blighted or hazardous properties.

Staff was requested to closely monitor the security of those buildings in the process of being demolished to ensure the safety of the neighborhood and citizens of Roseville.

Councilmembers expressed their pleasure with improvements to the area with demolition of blighted buildings, as expressed to them individually by citizens.

Further discussion included additional conversations between staff and property owners; need for staff to monitor the remainder of Roseville’s more challenging properties, even though the focus seemed to be on Twin Lakes; and an update by staff on commercial businesses along the County Road C corridor and improvements in process.

Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of proactive enforcement of other hazardous buildings for future reference; whether the City’s code maintenance addressed potential issues; or how to invoke state law and prove that something is a hazardous property rather than just unsightly.  Councilmember Ihlan opined the need for a strategy or leverage tool to accomplish goals without the public expending money if not fully recoverable.

Mayor Klausing opined that, by Councilmember Ihlan having raised this issue, and tonight’s pursuant discussion; both staff and Councilmembers were now more conscious of the availability of this law.

Mr. Trudgeon expressed staff’s willingness to investigate and pursue such an option in the future for commercial properties if deemed hazardous or needing demolition, provided the City Council provide such specific policy direction, based on individual merit and reasonable consideration in the future.

By consensus, Councilmembers supported staff’s pursuit, as outlined and with a clear written record of the process, similar to the abatement process used for residential properties; allowing property owners an opportunity to be heard at the City Council level; and allowing time for them to make remedies.

d.                 Discussion regarding Appraisals for property purchased from Roseville Acquisitions for Twin Lakes Phase I Infrastructure

Mr. Trudgeon provided appraisal information and summaries for property purchased from Roseville Acquisitions for Twin Lakes Phase I Infrastructure purposes, as detailed in the staff report dated July 20, 2009.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City’s appraiser, Dan Dwyer, was also present in the audience if needed to respond to questions of the City Council.

Councilmember Ihlan noted that more detailed appraisal information was available to the public at their request.

Discussion included rationale in payment for the property throughout the negotiation process; history of Eminent Domain proceedings on the property and impacts to the final settlement; market conditions; appraisal considerations; and identification of miscellaneous improvements to the property (i.e., fences, bituminous paving, etc.); and eventual reimbursement of acquisition costs through cost allocation to future developers.

e.                 Discussion of Possible Presumptive Penalty Liquor Code Revisions

Mayor Klausing noted past experiences in applying the ordinance language and potential ramifications based on State law.

Roseville Police Captain Rick Mathwig provided a history of Davanni’s compliance failures in past; history of non-compliance; and follow-up failure during suspension; and implications based on a parallel state statute requiring that the license holder would be barred from receiving a liquor license for a period of five  years following revocation.  Captain Mathwig noted the opinion provided by the City Attorney’s office dated June 30, 2009, and made a part of the agenda packet, outlining options for the City to consider.

A copy of City Code, Chapter 302, entitled, “Liquor Control,” was provided as a bench handout.

Discussion included those options available; balancing the City’s strong desire for compliance with the interests of the business owner; after-hours sale and illegal gambling on the premises as other concerns; suggestion by Councilmember Roe for a 60-day suspension and presumptive penalty of $2,000 as an intermediary step for sales following revocation; ramifications of sales to minors and the potential for other crimes; clarifying the intent of revised language for service to anyone, not just minors; changing City training to mandatory rather than discretionary; lack of staff for training to be provided consistently by the City; and ensuring that there is no lack of transparency on the City Council’s part in applying penalties across the board and not specific to each instance.

Further discussion included available research and background information on the City’s rationale for discretionary rather than mandatory city training; city-approved versus city-provided training; due process considerations in balancing applicable guidelines and recognizing facts surrounding specific violations that may be unique, allowing for flexibility rather than absolutes; and qualifications of company-sponsored training.

Councilmember Pust expressed her consternation with the ordinance as written; and suggested that the City start over in drafting a new ordinance.

Further discussion and provisions of the ordinance included the need for a review of penalties, and making those stricter, while still allowing for Council discretion; evaluation of whether the concept of city training being the only way to ensure adequate training has been provided, and whether to provide incentive for lesser penalties if that training is mandatory and completed; training available outside that of the City that may be just as applicable and/or desirable; verifying and clarifying the written documenting process for compliance checks and follow-up; review of the entire penalty scheme with a minimum presumptive penalty; and recognizing the need for an intermediate category and how to deal with repeat violations.

Further discussion included the need to consider rationale for possible non-renewal of a liquor license; punitive versus substantive action to disqualify reapplication for a license; and the need to provide a clear message to the public and businesses that the City takes very seriously, as a privilege, for a business to hold a liquor license; that it doesn’t condone sales to minors; and that there should be no incidents occurring if proper training is provided and monitored for employees.

After further discussion, it was Council consensus that Councilmembers Roe and Pust serve as a Council Subcommittee with staff to redraft the liquor ordinance to bring back to the full body for review and consideration.

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen provided  projected agenda items for future meeting.

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Pust requested two items, based on discussions at last week’s Council meeting, both related to the proposed Orchard Project:

§                     Zoning Code language specific to impervious surface limits and which districts to which they applied; with staff interpreting the code that it only applied to R-1 and R-2 Districts; and Councilmember Ihlan interpreting code that it applied to all residential districts (i.e., Ordinance 1001.01, subpart A.6); and whether a clarification needed to be provided as part of pending Zoning Code revisions for compliance with the amended Comprehensive Plan.

§                     The issue raised by Attorney Peter Coyle during that same discussion as to the unique process of Roseville in handling PUD requests and tying potential Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments to Concept versus Final Concept Plans; research on what other cities do; and a recommendation from staff on future processes to assure that the City Council retains the most leverage possible for its citizens in granting rezoning; and whether any changes in the process need to be part of the pending Zoning Code revisions for compliance with the amended Comprehensive Plan.

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 pm.