View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
City Council Meeting Minutes
October 19, 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 October: Ihlan; Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing)
Mayor Klausing noted that Councilmember Ihlan was unavailable for tonight’s meeting due to illness
City Attorney Jay Squires was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor Klausing recommended that Business Item 12.e entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Tier II Comprehensive Sewer Plan;” be deferred to a future meeting when a full complement of Councilmembers was available. Councilmembers concurred. 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.
a. Mr. Riaz Hussain, 1901 Lexington Avenue (Parking lot)
Mr. Hussain briefly reviewed the background of his parcel since 1997, and a change in use in his property without the City rescinding the parking regulations associated with that proposed use. Mr. Hussain asked that the City review his parcel again for resolution. Mr. Hussain advised that he had installed “No Parking” signage and asked what other recourse he needed to follow.
Mayor Klausing explained to Mr. Hussain the Conditional Use application process to follow through staff with a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission in order to address his concerns. Mayor Klausing advised that, while the City Council could review past meeting minutes to determine City Council rationale for their action at that time, the process would need to be followed. Mayor Klausing noted that Mr. Hussain was addressing two different issues: the original rationale for the action, and today’s process for changing that action; and was not based on whether or not anyone was currently parking on the site. Mayor Klausing assured Mr. Hussain that the City Council wanted to be responsive; however, noted that the Conditional Use Amendment process needed to be initially pursued through staff.
b. City Attorney Scott Anderson, 1314 Marquette Avenue, Mpls., MN
Mr. Anderson expressed his apologies to the citizens of Roseville from comments he made, presumably off-air and off-camera, during a recess at the October 12, 2009 City Council meeting. Mr. Anderson advised that he had been speaking with City Manager Bill Malinen and Finance Director Chris Miller during the recess, discussing their days, and he had used some colorful adjectives to describe his particularly difficult day prior to the meeting. Mr. Anderson advised that, unknown to him, the microphones had apparently been left on during the recess, and whether listeners had been offended or not from his language during this presumed private conversation, his language use had been inappropriate, and he offered his apologies to anyone hearing it.
4. Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Klausing announced the upcoming Human Rights Commission-sponsored and hosted second annual Welcoming Community and Diversity Forum, to be held at the Roseville Skating Center at 6:00 p.m., stemming from Imagine Roseville 2025 Community Visioning Mayor Klausing noted that advance registration was requested by registering at City Hall at 651 792-7026.
Councilmember Roe noted that the purpose of advance registration was to ensure that enough food was available for those attending this free event.
Mayor Klausing announced that on Saturday, October 2, the Central Park Foundation had held their annual fundraiser, and that Councilmembers Roe and Pust were Grand Prize winners of $1,000; which they had donated back to the Central Park Foundation.
5. Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
a. Approve Minutes of October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the minutes of the October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting as presented.
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Pust.
7. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no changes to the Consent Agenda. At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
a. Approve Payments
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing.
b. Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:
Floors by Beckers Inc.
Note: Funded with State Bonding monies
Parks & Rec
MN / Wisc.
Villa Play Area Renovation (PIP)
c. Receive 2009 Third Quarter Financial Update
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, receipt of the 2009 Third Quarter Financial Update dated October 19, 2009.
d. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Police Department to Participate with Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office to receive a Minnesota Department of Public Safety 2009-2010 Safe and Sober Grant
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10757 entitled, “Resolution Relating to the Administration and Implementation of a Traffic Safety Grant by the Roseville Police Department,” authorizing the Department to enter into an agreement with the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to execute the Safe & Sober Project for the period of October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010.
e. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Execution of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) $400,032 Grant Agreement
Councilmember Pust requested clarification to both Consent Items e and f as they related to the Police Department Grant, whether the technological upgrades constituted a local government fund match, even though the City Council had been assured when approving acceptance of the grant that there were no matching fund requirements.
City Manager Malinen advised that the reference was related to computers in squads; and had been identified in the 2009 budget as a capital item, with staff’s rationale being that with the new software installation, this may be a prudent time to replace the older laptops.
Captain Rick Mathwig advised that originally, a technology upgrade was included for squad car laptops in the 2009 Budget and subsequently cut; however, that it had been reinstated in the 2010 proposed budget. Captain Mathwig further advised that it was feasible to continue using the old technology and the old laptops, however, the laptops were on their fifth year of usage; and memory upgrades were at their maximum usage level.
Councilmember Pust noted that she was aware of the need for new laptops; however, clarified that her question was related to whether the City was obligated to make the upgrade due to acceptance of the funds.
Councilmember Johnson questioned when the updating of the laptops would be completed if the department went forward with the replacement.
Captain Mathwig advised that the agreement with LETG was based in part on successful interfacing with computer-aided dispatch services owned by the City of St. Paul, which was a Motorola product, and requiring interface approval with Motorola. Captain Mathwig advised that the software could still operate under new operations, with laptops funded by Data-9-1-1, and if the agreement was with the current CAD system owned by the City of St. Paul, they would retain Panasonic proprietary information, and would determine when completion of the project was finalized in 2010. Captain Mathwig advised that the City would be in compliance with grant requirements regardless of the laptop vendor chosen.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the department for a ride-along opportunity; however, advised that he would wait until the new equipment was installed.
Councilmember Pust questioned the mechanics of the LETG contract or agreement, and why the City had not gone out for bids given the amount of money involved.
Captain Mathwig advised that the grant timeline had been so short in order to get into the process, they had used LETG as a vendor, since they had previously looked at it several years ago; and they were also the State Representative for MN informational systems across the state; and that the grant time was not the normal time needed for the Request for Proposals (RFP) process.
City Attorney Jay Squires advised that there were no issues related to State bid law; but that he would need to review the City resolution recently adopted to determine if that was being complied with.
Captain Mathwig explained that LETG would not be providing all the equipment, but that other vendors would be utilized as well, some of whom were under state contract. Captain Mathwig offered to provide a more detailed background for Councilmember Pust at her request; however, noted that due to the unknowns with the proprietary issues, there were still a number of things to be resolved, some of which may not be completed until year-end.
Captain Mathwig advised Councilmember Pust that this proposed agreement was drafted with those unknowns taken into consideration; and that the City was responsible for purchasing the hardware, and LETG was responsible for supplying the software, and their writing of the interface for the CAD system, estimated at $20,000 as per their proposal, but would be determined by the actual amount of work required of them.
Police Department Records Management Technician Karen Rubey advised that it had been difficult to go out on RFP’s, when the grant funds needed to be expended by year-end; and since LETG was utilized to replace an existing system, staff understood that it was appropriate to proceed without an RFP.
Mayor Klausing expressed his confidence in proceeding understanding that time was of the essence; and opined that he was not concerned about state law with not bidding the contract, but was unsure of the City’s own recently-adopted policy.
City Attorney Squires advised that the City had the flexibility of deviating from their own policy; and offered to further review the City’s resolution at a break in tonight’s meeting if the City Council wanted to table the action until later in the meeting.
City Manager Malinen advised that the City’s policy provided for utilization of best overall value practices; and from his perspective it may be more cost-prohibitive to use that process for smaller contracts such as this.
Councilmember Pust recognized this perspective; however, opined that such an argument cuts against limiting the bidding pool and who was missing an opportunity to bid, in light of the amount of time the City Council spent discussing and initiating their policy on such a contract as this represented.
Mayor Klausing opined that, given the City Council policy versus the shortened period of time available, his overriding concern was proceeding to avoid loss of the grant funds; and proposed making an exception to the City’s policy, if necessary, in this case.
Councilmember Pust opined that it was premature to discuss such issues without the City Attorney’s review of the Policy if this item was to be tabled until later in the meeting.
Ms. Rubey advised that, when the City had initially applied for the grant funds, they needed to supply a quote for the equipment with each expenditure itemized, and only 30 days to accomplish that task. Ms. Rubey noted that LETG was a known vendor for the equipment needed, and had been reviewed by the department in the past, and considered to be the best fit for the equipment needed.
Councilmember Pust clarified to staff that she was not indicating that staff had been remiss in their actions; however, as a policy matter on bidding practices, the City needed to enunciate why they were deviating from their own policy.
Mayor Klausing opined that the City Council, through this discussion, had sufficiently articulated their rationale for this action; and opined his preference to proceed as requested, while allowing City Attorney Squires to verify the City’s policy, but continuing to move forward. Mayor Klausing opined that if the City Council needed to revise their standing policy to make this compliance, they could do so.
Councilmember Pust asked if the City Attorney’s office had reviewed these proposed agreements.
City Attorney Squires advised that his office had done so, but not him personally.
Councilmember Johnson opined that he was ready to move forward at this time.
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10758 entitled, “Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement (Attachment 2).”
f. Approve Law Enforcement Technology Group (LETG) Software and Equipment Services Agreement
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of a Software and Equipment License and Services Agreement between LETG and the City of Roseville’s Police Department; allowing the Department to proceed with the expeditious implement of LETG’s product to comply with the grant terms (funded projects need to be functional by January 1, 2010); and authorizing execution of the documents by the Mayor and City Manager.
g. Approve Law Enforcement Technology Group (LETG) Maintenance Support Agreement
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval of a Maintenance and Support Agreement between LETG and the City of Roseville’s Police Department allowing the Department to proceed with the expeditious implementation of LETG’s product to comply with the grant terms (funded projects need to be functional by January 1, 2010); and authorizing execution of the documents by the Mayor and City Manager.
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
a. Receive Springsted Report
Finance Director Chris Miller introduced Mr. Nick Dragisich of Springsted Incorporated, who reviewed the methodology on how the analysis was performed through information provided by staff; completion of time-spent profiles, in addition to allocation of supplies, materials and other services and charges based on the experience and best judgment of Springsted’s consulting team and the City’s Department Heads.
Discussion included income required to reach the desired Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) results, with addition of other pertinent data and assumptions; and reference points available from departments as to current levels of service for comparison purposes.
Councilmember Pust noted the outstanding critical piece of information needed consisting of a higher or lower level of service needed for comparison to the current service levels.
Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. Dragisich for his attendance.
b. 2010 Budget Prioritization Process – Phase #1 Continued
Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the Request for Council Action dated October 19, 2009, providing detail of the additional information requested by the City Council during and following their initial discussions last week in Phase I of the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. Mr. Miller noted additions to the matrix; the process of individual Councilmembers in their rankings; and the spreadsheet created to provide further assistance in that ranking process. Mr. Miller noted the assistance of Councilmember Roe in development of this tool; and offered staff’s willingness to further assist the City Council in their further discussions individually and as a collective body to arrive at a composite score to further the process and allow staff to apply funding dollars accordingly, and provide a first iteration of the 2010 proposed budget and address operational impacts for those rankings as another step in reaching consensus. Mr. Miller advised that staff was available to respond to any questions or to provide additional information on any programs and services. Mr. Miller advised that there were over 160 programs and services listed in the matrix.
Mayor Klausing thanked Mr. Miller for preparing the spreadsheet for ranking systems, and Councilmember Roe for taking it another step further. Mayor Klausing shared his perspective in ranking categories from a more fundamental level, using the five categories as follows:
· Ranking #5 – the highest ranking, based on the physical, well-being of individuals and properties throughout the community (i.e., fire and police services and responses).
· Ranking #4 – exponential burdens in subsequent years (failure to replace or deferrals of capital assets).
· Ranking #3 – failure to fund may impede the quality of life in Roseville (i.e., cultural or social events), noting that those items have value and make the City unique, but don’t have as significant impacts as the first two categories.
· Ranking #2 – if not funded, wouldn’t impact citizens, but may impede staff in fulfilling their duties.
· Ranking #1 – if not funded, no negligible impacts, and very few would fall into that column.
Discussion included additional information needed to proceed with the next steps; and individual perspectives in proceeding with the ranking process and applying numbers to each.
Councilmember Roe noted the discussions at the previous week’s meeting, at which Mayor Klausing was not present, and how each Councilmember shared many of his observations; and additional background information provided by staff as that discussion ensued, at which time Councilmember Roe had included that information to the combined matrix that had been provided earlier that day by Mr. Miller, but had not been included in the agenda packet.
Further discussion included staff’s provision at the previous meeting of a description of service and levels of service; determining what the City wanted to excel at, and those things (i.e., federal and state mandates) that only indicated minimum compliance.
Councilmember Johnson recognized Mayor Klausing’s ranking system; however, noted that while parks and recreation issues may be listed under quality of life (Rank #3), issues such as broken playground equipment could quickly rise as a safety and health issue (Rank#5). Councilmember Johnson opined that the most important thing was to make sure the priorities were well identified.
Additional discussion included clarifying the attachments and making the connection between the specific listings and how the BFO process has evolved to-date based on City Council discussions and information needs; attempts by staff to preserve the integrity of the original Springsted Report and calculations based on the profiles provided to them by specific departments, with staff then breaking it out for more detail and to continue as much transparency as possible; variables in various functions (i.e., elections) and calculations as direct costs,
Councilmember Johnson thanked staff and Councilmember Roe for the additional refinement and listing. Councilmember Johnson admitted that he had not originally been supportive of including the additional 2010 budget impact numbers; however, admitted that since that discussion, he had appreciated being able to utilize the numbers to get a better budgetary picture.
Discussion ensued related to how those mandated items ranked in the process versus those non-mandated items; what the tentative total figures represented and compared from 2009 to 2010; difference of $887,730 and the initial City Council task of eliminating that shortfall from the 2010 budget column.
Councilmember Pust noted that the proposed shortfall could change based on the additional levy amount factored in as the ceiling amount set in the Preliminary Levy and adjustments the City Council may make to that number, originally based on a nine percent (9%) levy increase.
Further discussion related to additional revenue sources that may be identified by the City Council to help bridge the gap; policy considerations versus mechanics; rankings and operational impacts to levels of service as part of the BFO process, based on further discussions with staff of those impacts to service levels.
Councilmember Pust opined that everyone was eventually going to have to submit their individual rankings to Mr. Miller, at which time he would provide the composite ranks based on those individual perspectives.
Councilmember Johnson expressed his enthusiasm to receive the composite results.
Councilmember Roe opined that the key was what Mr. Miller was referencing; as Phase II in making the choices required and dealing with the implications of funding or not funding the various programs and/or services; and whether the Council as a body chose to reallocate resources accordingly; as well as the implications to other services and/or programs overall.
Councilmember Pust opined that the City’s money was tied to people, and a decision needed to be made on how to save those costs.
Councilmember Roe concurred with Councilmember Pust; opining that policy decisions would be required, as well as sorting priorities, not just ranked by larger and smaller items for funding purposes, but determining which made sense to continue. Councilmember Roe further opined that this would require substantial discussion of individual Councilmembers and as a body, as well as with staff and the community.
Councilmember Pust expressed concern with the timing to complete the process; and encouraged individual Councilmembers to submit their rankings to Mr. Miller as soon as possible to allow preparation of the composite numbers by staff for discussion at the next meeting.
Councilmember Johnson requested composite numbers from staff at their earliest convenience; preferably prior to the next meeting to allow a more educated discussion at that meeting.
Mr. Miller advised that providing those numbers would be a quick process; and reminded individual Councilmembers to utilize staff as their resource for any additional information needed or questions they had. Mr. Miller further noted that the individual rankings would provide staff with the composite listing of those areas in which the City Council sought to excel and would further assist staff in providing ideas for more cost-effective operations accordingly.
Councilmember Pust concurred with receiving the composite information as soon as possible, and sought City Attorney opinion as to any concerns with Open Meeting laws.
Mr. Squires advised that there would be no issue; and that the City Council was continually in receipt of updated information from staff.
Mayor Klausing asked that Mr. Miller provide additional detail on the percentage of those federal, state, and city mandated services and programs.
Councilmember Pust concurred, and noted that the federal and state mandated programs were set, but on city-mandated items, the City had more discretion. Councilmember Pust asked that staff define those items; and asked that Department Heads review her #2 rankings, as she had categorized those items of which she was not familiar or the description was vague or “other,” and asked that they provide additional information for her to further review her rankings under that category.
Mayor Klausing asked that individual rankings be provided to Mr. Miller by Wednesday of this week.
Councilmember Roe asked that Councilmember Ihlan be advised by staff, due to her absence, of this request as well.
Further discussion included ways to compare levels of service, based on staff experience and peer communities; and potential areas of consensus and others requiring more lobbying by individual Councilmembers of the entire body to achieve consensus.
City Manager Malinen suggested that by using their laptop computers, the City Council may be able to streamline the process and make it more efficient and even make adjustments during the meeting, with staff providing compilations during the meetings.
Mayor Klausing sought Councilmember comment related to discussion of additional funding sources, and potentially lowering the preliminary levy.
Councilmember Pust noted that that was the ultimate question, of where the line actually ended, and opined that it may move around considerably over the next few meetings and discussions.
Mayor Klausing expressed his interest in finishing this part of the process as soon as possible to invite public comment to see if the public was in agreement with the direction of the City Council.
Councilmember Johnson expressed appreciation to staff for their continued availability during this process; and opined that there would be substantial discussion needed related to quality of service issues.
Councilmember Roe noted that not every line item had a quality of service associated with it; and suggested that if the levels of service could be defined and ranked as “high, medium and low,” with the priority rankings of 1 through 5, they should start to correspond.
Mayor Klausing echoed appreciation to staff for their ongoing work and availability for this process.
11. Public Hearings
a. Conduct a Public Hearing for Amarose Convenience Store, 1595 West Hig hway 36, Off-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License Application
Finance Director Chris Miller summarized the Request for Council Action dated October 19, 2009 for application of an Off-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License for Amarose Convenience Store, located at 1595 West Highway 36, #245; and recommended approval.
Mayor Klausing opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. to receive public comment on the proposed application; with no one appearing to speak.
Discussion included the uniqueness of this off-sale application in the Rosedale Shopping Center; and adherence to compliance checks as with other licensees.
Councilmember Pust questioned whether staff was aware of any experiences, negative or positive, of other communities in selling alcohol in shopping centers at which there was substantial youth congregated.
Mr. Miller advised that staff had not researched peer communities, but advised that staff could do so if directed. Mr. Miller advised that the Police Department had reviewed the application request, and had expressed no concern in its location within the shopping center.
Mayor Klausing noted the odd space occupied by this convenience store business, and its location relative to the main shopping areas.
12. Business Items (Action Items)
a. Consider the Amarose Convenience Store, 1595 West Highway 36, Off-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License Application
Roe moved, Klausing seconded, approval of the Off-Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License for Amarose Convenience Store, located at 1595 West Highway 36, #245.
Ayes: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.
b. Consider 2010 City Benefits Insurance Renewals and Cafeteria Plan Contributions
Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon summarized consideration of 2010 employee benefits insurance renewals and cafeteria plan contributions, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 19, 2009.
Ms. Bacon reviewed the Request for Proposals (RFP) process, with two bid decline letters based on the perceived risk of the group; Medica’s renewal rate at fifteen percent (15%) based on the positive decline in claims, allowing for a lower premium increase than in past years, but not sufficiently reduced in the review committee’s view. Ms. Bacon noted that the report on page three should have indicated Health Partners, not Blue Cross as stated. Ms. Bacon reviewed Health Partners’ proposal, various tiers, and increases/decreases to the specific plans already offered by the City but providing better overall benefits to employees.
Ms. Bacon advised that the employee review committee had reviewed the bids of both vendors, and was recommending Health Partners as best suited to the City’s needs at this time. Ms. Bacon reviewed the open enrollment period and preparation of documents by year end. Ms. Bacon referenced Attachment A of the Request for Council Action, and recommended split of the increase, based on budget constraints, and the overall $50,000 increase from the 2009 budget.
Ms. Bacon further reviewed the other employee benefit premiums for dental, life and long-term disability, advising that the City’s self-funded dental claims versus premiums had shown a favorable year through the city/county consortium over a three year contract with rates holding flat for that contract term and no anticipated changes in plan or rates through 2011.
Discussion included the aggregate premium increases and their application with every employee to experience a $25/month increase; and impacts to single, single+ one, and family coverage premiums.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the 2010 employee insurance programs and fund allocations as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 19, 2009; as per the respective contracts represented; subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
c. Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 807 Sandhurst Drive
Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated October 19, 2009; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this foreclosed, vacant, single-family home at 807 Sandhurst, who’s current owners have moved out-of-state and have no resources to bring the property into compliance.
Discussion included safety issues with the pool and security fencing for this above-ground pool; and additional observations of removal of additional safety fencing that will be addressed as a separate action due to notice and timing requirements.
Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of junk and debris from the rear yard area; and repair of three fence sections, for a total abatement cost estimated at $500.00, which was an additional $100 over that originally requested in the Request, based on recent observation of additional junk and debris.
Further discussion included options for making the pool safe; need to delay action for notice requirements and immediate installation of a temporary orange security fence as applicable, with more permanent options available for a new owner as to the future of the pool.
Mr. Munson advised that the property was in foreclosure; however, in discussions with the current owner, a short sale was being attempted; and that the parties were aware of tonight’s requested action before the City Council.
Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the public nuisance violations at 807 Sandhurst Drive.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation(s) at 807 Sandhurst Drive, by hiring a general contractor to remove and dispose of junk and debris from the rear yard area; and to repair three fence sections, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated October 19, 2009, in addition to additional junk and debris observed by the pool, at an estimated cost of approximately $500.00; 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.
d. Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code at 681 Lovell
Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated October 19, 2009; providing a visual update on the property as of today of this owner-occupied, single-family home, with the current owner, Ms. Solorzano, residing at the home.
Mr. Munson summarized the proposed abatement, consisting of removal of brush, junk and debris and building materials, at a total abatement cost estimated at $350.00.
Mr. Munson advised that the people residing in the home were apparently involved in a roofing company, and violations had initially been observed through the City’s Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP), but were repetitive from previous years. Mr. Munson reviewed the various and many attempts by staff to communicate with the owner; however, advised that no contact had been successful to-date.
Staff recommended that the Community Development Department be authorized to abate the public nuisance violations at 681 Lovell Avenue.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation(s) at 681 Lovell Avenue, by hiring a general contractor to remove brush, junk and debris and building materials, at a total abatement cost estimated at $350.00, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated October 19, 2009, at an estimated cost of approximately $350.00; 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.
Councilmember Pust asked for an update from staff on code enforcement efforts at previously-addressed commercial properties.
Mr. Munson reviewed the various commercial properties, specific to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, and their status at this time; reporting that all were in various stages of moving toward compliance, and ongoing meetings between those property owners and staff.
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon specifically addressed the “1408” property and other properties along County Road C; advising that staff was pleased with the cooperation being received to-date, with staff continuing with routine follow-up with those property owners. Mr. Trudgeon opined that the City Council should be able to observe substantial improvements in screening of those properties, and that staff would continue to seek further compliance as appropriate.
e. Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Tier II Comprehensive Sewer Plan
As previously noted, this item was deferred to a future meeting when a full complement of Councilmembers was available.
f. Consider Acquisition of Portions of Property at 2785 Fairview Avenue for Road and Infrastructure Purposes
Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the proposed Purchase Agreement for 2785 Fairview Avenue as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated October 19, 2009.
Mr. Trudgeon provided a map of the parcel, known as the “Hagen Property,” at Fairview Avenue and County Road C; discussed the history of the parcel; and future need of acquisition of the property by the City for additional infrastructure work. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed discussion over the last year related to this parcel, ordering of an appraisal by the City; and negotiations and discussions coming to this point and requested action before the City Council.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the area of the parcel included in the Purchase Agreement; right-of-way purchase and triangle remnant piece; temporary easement area; and remediation costs escrowed in the amount of $60,000; applicable waivers; relocation costs for current tenants, but not subsequent tenants; timing of closure; and disclosure of hazardous or contaminated areas based on previous studies to-date. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the outbuilding serving as a truck repair facility would continue in operation and for truck storage until June 1, 2011, unless the City determined that it needed earlier access, at which time the lease would be prorated as applicable. Mr. Trudgeon advised that Hagen Ventures will continue to operate and be responsible for all utilities and taxes and will be required to hold general liability insurance for use of property.
Staff recommended entering into the Purchase Agreement to secure this important link for further development of the Twin Lakes Parkway at this time and based on this mutually-agreeable transaction.
Mayor Klausing noted those tenants eligible for relocation and those not and specific language (bullet point #5) “WILL NOT” likely be eligible for relocation, and questioned rationale for that language.
City Attorney Squires advised that the language had been chosen and the Purchase Agreement structured to best protect the City, given that there would not be a determination of who would be eligible until their actual displacement should the City need use of the property earlier than anticipated; and allowing for how a relocation consultant would make their conclusions based on specific language.
Discussion included potential combining of the parcel to the north in the future; potential use of the parcel for water storage; and the need for the City to proceed with a platting process to best serve the City, whether via an outlot or right-of-way with the existing building being a non-conforming use and situation created by the City over the next few years.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of entering into a Purchase Agreement with Hagen Ventures, LLC to purchase a portion of 2785 Fairview Avenue for the road and infrastructure purposes within Twin Lakes; in the amount of $1,006,500; to be funded through existing Tax Increment Finance (TIF) balances.
Councilmember Roe spoke in support of this action, noting that a question had been raised as to why acquire the property now based on current budget constraints. However, Councilmember Roe opined that the condition of the marketplace allowed the City to purchase the property now for future right-of-way advantages for the City, by using available tax increment financing (TIF) funds and taking on no additional debt, but basically using money in savings. Councilmember Roe, while not originally supportive of acquiring all of the property, further opined that it made sense to acquire the proposed portion of the property at this time in anticipation of future infrastructure improvements.
Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion, echoing Councilmember Roe’s observations; opining that it was much preferable to have both a willing seller and purchaser, rather than use of an eminent domain process.
13. Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.
15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:32 pm.