City
Council Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2010
1. Roll Call
Mayor Klausing called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for April: Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and
Klausing). City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember Ihlan requested
removal of Consent Items 7.d and 7.h, respectively entitled, “Approve Wellness
Plan City Services Discount Program;” and “Approve Lease Agreement with Clear
Wireless, LLC (“Clearwire”) for Leased Space on the North City Campus Communications
Tower.”
Councilmember Roe requested removal
of Consent Item 7.e entitled, “Adopt an Ordinance Amending Title 1010.03,
Section 10, Posting Political Signage relating to the date that Political
Campaigns can post Political Signs.”
City Manager Malinen requested the
addition of an additional under Item 5. Recognition, Donations and
Communications entitled, “Proclamation – Harriet Alexander Nature Center –
Twentieth Anniversary – Earth Day – April 24, 2010.”
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 at this time.
4.
Council Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Klausing recognized and
thanked City staff members: Cindy Anderson, Pat Dolan, Margaret Driscoll,
Caroline Curti, and Mike Ross, for their reinstallation of 19 photos in the
City Hall Council Chambers, providing a historical record of Roseville City
Councils.
Mayor Klausing announced a meeting
scheduled for May 3, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the Roseville Skating Center that
will provide an overview of City governance and the 2011 budget process. For
additional information, the public may contact the City’s Finance Director at
651/792-7031 or by e-mail at chris.miller@ci.roseville.mn.us.
Councilmember Pust encouraged the
public to participate in the upcoming city-wide clean up day scheduled for
April 24, 2010 from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm at 2555 N Dale Street.
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a.
Recognition of Retiring Commissioners
Mayor Klausing recognized and
thanked three retiring Commissioners: Those not present were Matthew Hiber and
Sarah Brodt-Lenz, both retiring from the Parks and Recreation Commission; and
the one retiring Commissioner present, Mary Jean Turinia Anderson, retiring
from the Police Civil Service Commission.
Mayor Klausing personally
presented a plaque to Ms. Turinia Anderson.
Ms. Turinia-Anderson thanked Mayor
Klausing and the City Council for the recognition.
b. Harriet Alexander
Nature Center Proclamation
As previously noted this item was
added to the agenda as a bench handout. Mayor Klausing read a proclamation
recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Harriet Alexander Nature
Center on April 24, 2010.
Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, proclamation
recognizing 20th anniversary of the Harriet Alexander Nature Center
on April 24, 2010.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Discuss Right-of-Way
Acquisition of 1885 and 1915 West County Road C
2. Discuss Revised
Settlement of 2814 Cleveland Avenue
Mayor Klausing announced that the
City Council would be going into Closed Executive Session.
City Attorney Caroline Bell Beckman
reviewed the purpose of the Closed Executive Session related to attorney/client
privilege and confidential discussion related to rights-of-way acquisition, in
accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.3 acquisition of property, specific
to rights-of-way acquisition at 1885 and 1915 West County Road C and to discuss
revised settlement of 2814 Cleveland Avenue.
Johnson moved, Roe seconded,
recessing the meeting into Closed Executive Session, at 6:12 pm, related to
attorney/client privilege and confidential discussion by the City Council,
staff and legal counsel, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 3.3
acquisition of property, specific to rights-of-way acquisition at 1885 and 1915
West County Road C and to discuss revised settlement of 2814 Cleveland Avenue.
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Roe; and Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 6:12 pm
and reconvened in Executive Session at approximately 6:13 pm.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the Executive Session at approximately
6:32 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 6:33 pm in Regular Session.
Upon reconvening, Mayor Klausing advised that, pursuant to
discussion during Executive Session, the City Council would consider action as Item
12.b on tonight’s agenda, entitled, “Consider Right-of-Way Acquisition of 1885
& 1915 West County Road C.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of March 29, 2010 Regular Meeting
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the minutes of the March 29, 2010 Regular meeting as amended.
Corrections:
§
Page 13, “Recess” (Roe)
Correct to read
“Mayor Klausing,” rather than “Acting Mayor Johnson.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Ihlan;
Johnson; Roe; Pust; 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,
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.
|
ACH Payments
|
$140,894.51
|
|
58079-58211
|
599,501.23
|
|
Total
|
$740,395.74
|
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business Licenses
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, approval
of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the
following applicants:
|
Applicant/Location
|
Type of License
|
|
International Paper; 2425 Terminal Road
|
Recycling Hauler
|
|
Ashley E. Johnson, by Rocco Altobelli, Suite 945
|
Massage Therapist
|
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Item/Description
|
Amount
|
|
Streets
|
Highway Technologies
|
Centerline paving of City streets
|
$8,000.00
|
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve Appointments to Variance Board
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
ratification of the selection of Roseville Planning Commissioners Andre Best,
Daniel Boerigter, John Gisselquist, and Thomas Gottfried as Variance Board
members to serve as the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals from May 5,
2010 to April 6, 2011.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
g.
Adopt a Resolution Awarding Bid for Contract B
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10801 entitled, “Resolution Awarding Bids for 2010
Contract B;” in the amount of $1,154,365.69 to Asphalt Surface Technology Corp.
(a/k/a ASTECH Corp) of St. Cloud, MN.
Roll
Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
i.
Approve Easement Release to the Minnesota Department of Transportation
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of the Quit Claim Deed Easement with MnDOT for the release of the
City’s interests in the sanitary sewer lift station easement, located along the
east right-of-way of Trunk Highway 280 (TH280).
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
j.
Cancel April 19, 2010 City Council Meeting
Johnson moved, Klausing seconded,
approval of cancellation of the City Council meeting originally scheduled for
April 19, 2010.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
a. Approve
Wellness Plan City Services Discount Program (Former Consent Item 7. d)
City Manager Malinen reviewed this
item, as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated April 12, 2010.
Councilmember Ihlan sought clarification
whether the City employee’s health insurance included premium reductions for
those involved in fitness clubs; and clarified that this would not apply to a
golf club membership.
City Manager Malinen advised that
the employee health insurance did include a benefit for fitness club members,
if employees periodically attended those offerings; and confirmed that it did
not apply to golf memberships.
Human Resources Director Eldona
Bacon confirmed that coupons for golf discounts and reduced skating center fees
were currently available to residents of the community, most recently advertised
in the Happenings Book and area newspapers periodically.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
the incentive for employees related to the Wellness Plan, if the coupons were
already offered in the community and to residents; and suggested that a greater
incentive be offered to employees for their regular and consistent
participation in order to ultimately improve their health and reduce health
insurance premiums.
Discussion included the variety
and type of coupon and discount offerings available to Roseville residents at
this time.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
support of encouraging employees, but opined that previous policy discussions
had noted that the City didn’t offer discounts or reduced fees to community
sports facilities for its own residents, and questioned whether it was
therefore fair to do so for City staff when not available to taxpayers
supporting those facilities.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
if a free membership for staff to a health and fitness club would be more
appropriate, since that was not being offered to citizens.
Councilmember Ihlan concurred, if
that was a benefit of the health insurance program.
Councilmember Pust noted the need
to consider whether such benefit was applicable as a part of an employee wage
under State Employment Law, which would increase the taxpayer load as an
employee benefit, as well as impacting the employee.
Councilmember Roe requested more definitive
information from staff as to how often the same discount was offered over a season
to residents (i.e., golf and skating), as well as information on employee
benefits accordingly as it related to State Employment Law.
Councilmember Pust noted that she
questioned the tournament itself and solicitation of prizes for the event, if
public dollars were used for volunteer events, and suggested that such an event
be further researched by legal counsel and staff; and spoke in support of the
tournament if that was not a problem.
Mayor Klausing noted that this
concern addressed by Councilmember Pust had been the State Auditor’s position
on State Statute addressed to a previous City Council.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of staff creation of an ongoing coupon program allowing regular staff
use of City recreational facilities at a discounted rate not to exceed that offered
to the public; and to approve a one-time City staff Golf Tournament, if deemed
appropriate upon advice of legal counsel, and solicitation of prizes for this
event.
Mayor Klausing requested that
staff report back to the City Council on specific coupons and discounts to
ensure they were comparable to that offered to the public; as well as legal counsel’s
advice on whether solicitation of prizes for the golf tournament could occur
without it being deemed an additional employee benefit.
Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
support of the majority of the motion, with the exception of the first part;
thus requiring her to vote against the motion.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan.
Motion
carried.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Ms. Bacon advised that the Wellness Committee would track employee
participation.
b. Adopt
an Ordinance Amending Title 1010.03, Section 10, Posting Political Signage
relating to the date that Political Campaigns can post Political Signs (former
Consent Item 7.e)
City Manager Malinen reviewed the
request, as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010.
Councilmember Roe suggested that
City Ordinance language defer to State Law by reference rather than specifying
a date in City Ordinance requiring future revisions.
Mayor Klausing noted the
difficulty in referring to State Law and City Ordinance as being more
cumbersome for those seeking to comply.
Councilmember Pust publicly
apologized to the City’s Communication Specialist Caroline Curti, who had
presented the correct updated language in staff’s original draft; noting that
it was the State Reviser’s Office who did not have the updated Statute language
available when she was reviewing the issue. Councilmember Pust opined that,
generally speaking, she was amenable to the proposed language as stated.
Klausing moved, Pust seconded,
enactment of Ordinance No. 1392 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title 1010.03,
Section 10 – Posting Political Signage.”
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Pust
noted, for those interested, the date is June 25, 2010.
c. Approve
Lease Agreement with Clear Wireless, LLC (“Clearwire”) for Leased Space on the
North City Campus Communications Tower (Former Consent Item 7.h)
City Manager Malinen reviewed the
lease agreement as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010; for a five (5)
year term with potential extensions with applicable increases of three percent
(3%), with revenues abated to offset construction costs for Clearwire for this
tower to be located on the North City Campus, as previously approved by the
City Council.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned
what technology was intended for this tower; how much stronger the signal would
be; and whether the City had done an analysis of the viability of economic
impacts as they related to fiber optic projects; in addition to health and
safety concerns of this type of microwave signal and environmental impacts.
City Manager Malinen advised that
the intent for this lease agreement with Clearwire was for “wi-max” or wireless
internet access signals, stronger to reach broader areas, with their ultimate
intent to have a wi-fi cloud over the entire metropolitan area to gain internet
access.
Mayor Klausing noted that, as
clarified in previous discussions, the actual physical object was similar to,
but smaller than, wireless antennas.
City Manager Malinen concurred,
noting that it was much smaller that a cellular antenna, as was the cabinetry
at the base of the tower.
Finance Director Chris Miller addressed
the economic viability of this wi-max technology, regulated by the FCC who
provides their own due diligence on this technology and their allowance of it;
with staff relying on the FCC to advise of any concerns from a safety and
health standpoint, with their assurances that there are no definitive reasons
for concern. Mr. Miller noted that this is the third such wi-max antenna array
considered by the City, with other private sites also being under negotiation.
Mr. Miller advised that the FCC regulated that local government could not
factor in health and safety impacts as a finding for denial; however, he
advised that he could not speak to their environmental analysis.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that the
FCC regulates and limits local government in whether they can deny approvals
and the basis for such denial; however, she asked if the FCC had done environmental
studies as to whether that signal could interfere with other providers; and
opined that she would like any public information from the FCC made available
to the public on environmental issues. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her
concern that the City had done sufficient market analysis on whether this was a
long-term good technology and that it would remain profitable and be around in
5-6 years once the rent abatement expired and the City began to realize revenue
from the lease agreement.
Mr. Miller advised that staff did
not have sufficient expertise; however, observations would indicate that the
wireless technologies continued to make significant strides in the industry,
and he personally opined that he didn’t see that technology going anywhere but
upward in the immediate future. Mr. Miller noted that, while there was a
potential for broadband and fiber optic technology, they remained emerging and
expensive, and wireless was proving to be more economically viable for
providers. Mr. Miller further opined that, once those other technologies matured
and became more economically viable, providers would find a way to proceed with
them.
Councilmember Roe noted, and Mr.
Miller confirmed, that in approving this agreement, if the technology no longer
remained viable, the City still owned the tower from its original construction,
and Clearwire retained the expense of that construction whether they remained
on site or not, which provided protection to the City and its taxpayers.
Klausing moved, Johnson seconded,
approval of the lease agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville
and Clear Wireless, LLC for leased space at the City Hall North Communication
Tower.
Councilmember Ihlan, while having
lingering concerns regarding whether commercial uses were appropriate on public
property; spoke in support of this lease agreement as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
9.
General Ordinances for adoption
10.
Presentations
a.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Progress Report and Discussion
Parks and Recreation Director
Lonnie Brokke introduced the Master Plan Work Group: LHB Representative Michael
Schroeder; Citizen Facilitator Richard “Jake” Jacobson; Park Superintendent/Design
Team Member Jeff Evenson; Skating Center Superintendent Brad Tullberg; and Assistant
Parks and Recreation Director Jill Anfang. Mr. Brokke noted that this was a
milestone report for the Master Plan process, and would touch on four areas: 1)
description and review of proposed framework; 2) review and ID particular park
and facility areas for design work with community in next few months; 3)
section identified bigger and larger in community that will take more work; and
4) review statistically valid survey information versus value-based to-date.
Mr. Brokke brought to the City
Council’s attention in the agenda packet, an article written by Parks and
Recreation Commissioner Julia Jacobson, recently published in her School’s Raider
Report to encourage youth involvement in the Master Plan process.
LHB Representative Michael
Schroeder
Mr. Schroeder reviewed various
components and considerations in outlining the vision and organization of those
items, including: diagrams; community barriers and divisions; park types; park
components; base levels of park components in each park; components in every
constellation; community/sector components; and major components. Mr.
Schroeder described the “constellation” concept used to identify specific parks
and their deficiencies, identified through ten minute walk areas around each of
the neighborhood areas, and used several examples in various areas of the
community, building on the original parks Master Plan completed in the 1960’s.
Mr. Schroeder reviewed the spread sheets included in the agenda packet
identifying amenities and available resources at each constellation, with those
maps and spreadsheets now available for the next step in determining how to
deliver programs and use them for tracking investments and implementation activities
at each constellation.
Mr. Schroeder noted that the next
steps would be the Concept Planning Design Charettes scheduled for May 19 and
June 2 to develop concepts that reflect across seven different zones in the
community, and provided the rationale in choosing those particular seven parks,
based on specific criteria.
Further items overviewed in the
presentation included the public input process itself; identification of
several areas needing further studies; and value-based versus statistically
valid input or a combination of both to proceed toward implementation.
Councilmembers recognized and
thanked members of the Work Group for their time and commitment to the process,
as well as that of Roseville citizens for their participation.
Discussion among Councilmembers
and members of the Work Group included, potential planning at Langton Park;
walking connections within the constellations and linking them to each other
and other areas and amenities in the community working from the neighborhood
outward, with the Public Works view working from the regional transportation
perspective back to the community; definition of existing and/or planned trails
and those areas where nothing is planned; and looping them for identification
as recreational opportunities as well.
Further discussion included making the community walkable; inclusion of commercial
venues in town and addressing them, through discussion and coordination with
members of the business community for their perspective, with the role of
pathways, private parks or park-like facilities; or partnering with businesses
for those amenities in business-oriented areas (i.e., pocket parks).
Mr. Brokke noted the interest in
performing a statistically valid survey and/or needs assessment closer to the
implementation stage to determine if the information developed during the
process matched or was consistent..
Additional discussion included development
of individual constellations for basic facilities and/or programs, with not
every service or program available at each park; challenges of those areas of
the community under-served by parks; creative thinking necessary to provide
those services at this time or in the future; development of stronger
relationship with parks lying across borders for the community (i.e., City of
Lauderdale) through partnerships with those communities and/or private entities
or businesses, but available to the public.
Further discussion included the
individual interest of Councilmembers in pursuing a survey, specific to asking
for statistically valid information as a precursor to a bond referendum;
general support of the Council for the constellation concept to provide access
in various areas, as well as building continuity in the park system, while
being creative and yet practical and reflecting reality and how the community
defines itself in relationship to neighborhood parks;
Councilmember Pust suggested that
the Work Group also think about a community center from a community-wide
perspective outside the traditional bricks and mortar structure.
Additional discussion included the
Harriet Alexander Nature Center (HANC) also known as Concept Planning Area #7,
and the boardwalk currently being removed with no plans to replace it; private
and public areas at HANC; challenges of the possible implementation of a
pathway around that wetland area; and ongoing work with the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) for a broader perspective.
Upcoming community meetings for
the Master Plan process were announced, as detailed in the Report dated April
12, 2010; and the opportunities reviewed at these small group get-togethers in
workshop format and providing interactive decision-making.
b.
Update of Infrastructure Improvements for the Twin Lakes AUAR
Area Final Report
City Engineer Debra Bloom provided
an update on cost allocations for infrastructure improvements in the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010. Ms. Bloom
noted that staff performed this annual review and update as conditions changed,
with the purpose of the infrastructure study to highlight future infrastructure
needs as identified in the AUAR through 2010 with a goal to fund and allocate
costs for those public improvements as identified. Ms. Bloom noted that there
were16 improvements listed in the original study, with another addition of Iona
Lane to that original number. Ms. Bloom advised that the improvement area was
bordered by Cleveland Avenue; County Road D; Snelling Avenue; and County Road
C; with each area anticipating specific improvements.
Ms. Bloom reviewed original cost
allocations and their initial calculation based on cost per network trip;
future improvement costs allocated proportionately to the appropriate redevelopment;
roadway cost estimates based on concept sketches, lateral impacts, and major
construction components and contingencies; and MnDOT 2007 average bid prices.
Since that time, Ms. Bloom noted additional information now available, allowing
for a more precise calculation, including:
§
Additional environmental clean up on Phase I;
§
Additional costs for building demolition;
§
Availability of actual right-of-way costs;
§
Actual construction and engineering costs to-date;
§
Engineer’s estimates;
§
Adjustments for construction inflation;
§
Addition of grant funds received to-date; and
§
Addition of remnant parcels as they are sold.
Ms. Bloom reviewed cost
comparisons based on Traffic Consultant SRF calculations, from November of 2008
to March of 2010 updates for this evolving project, using as an example the
now-completed Metro Transit Park and Ride facility constructed at Iona Lane and
Mount Ridge Road, and allocation of those fixed costs throughout the
development as applicable. Ms. Bloom noted that this updating would be ongoing
as new developments came in and cost allocations were revised, based on those
average cost per network trip allocations.
Discussion among staff and Councilmembers
included the complexity of this calculation system designed by SRF.
Ms. Bloom also reviewed public
utility cost allocations, with more detailed information available at the
upcoming public hearing, similar to the cost allocation study presented
tonight, taking into consideration the overall area for sanitary sewer, storm
sewer and water main costs for the area; however, noting that this calculation
would be much less complex, and based on parcel size.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the next steps,
which would include meeting with interested parties regarding the updated study
at the April 26, 2010 City Council meeting (Public Hearing); City Council
consideration of approval of study updates; City Council consideration and
approval of plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for
Phase II of the infrastructure improvements from Cleveland Avenue to the roundabout
at Prior Avenue, and including a signal at Prior Avenue and County Road C; and
City Council consideration and approval of amending the consultant contract.
Councilmember Roe requested that
staff attempt to provide larger-type or more readable spreadsheets for the
Public Hearing scheduled for April 26, 2010.
11.
Public Hearings
12.
Business Items (Action Items)
a.
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Abatement of City Code Violations
at 2433 Simpson Street
Permit Coordinator Munson reviewed
the request for abatement as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010;
providing a visual update on the property as of today of this single-family, detached
home at 2433 Simpson Street.
Mr. Munson further provided a
history of previous City Council action in authorizing staff to proceed with a
Ramsey County court citation; however, noted that with the change in City Attorneys
earlier this year, their legal advice had changed, thus bringing forth this
amended action request, again seeking correction through an abatement process.
Mr. Munson assured Councilmembers that this was not a change in the City’s enforcement
method, but a process to avoid additional delays and ongoing citizen
complaints. Mr. Munson advised that the homeowner was present to speak
tonight; however, various notices and correspondence with the homeowner had not
brought forth compliance, with only a limited amount of siding applied to-date,
and without completion since 2003.
Mr. Munson summarized the proposed
abatement and estimated costs, consisting of purchasing siding/soffit materials
($6,000); labor to install siding/soffits ($10,000); installation of permanent
electrical service ($2,500); and completion of chimney beyond the roof line
($3,000) for an estimated total of $21,500.
City Attorney Bell Beckman
clarified their proposed recommendation to staff on this issue; cited similar
code violations currently pending before Ramsey County; and outlined the power
of the City Council to enforce violations in criminal court in order to remedy
these situations. Ms. Bell Beckman cautioned on the viability of a court order
issued to clean up property, and without compliance, there was no solution in
the end. Ms. Bell Beckman recommended that staff be authorized to obtain a
property report and involvement from the mortgage company to determine the
value of the home and the dollar benefit to the property in remedying this
situation, at a cost of approximately $75.
Staff recommended that the
Community Development Department be authorized to abate the unresolved City
Code violations as detailed.
Discussion included the reason for
this delay based on changing of City Attorneys in January of 2010; and how to
prioritize accomplishing compliance before another summer was over.
Homeowner Tamara Davis
Ms. Davis advised that she had sent
a letter to all the City Council regarding her family’s health and financial
situations; however, she noted that she had received no response from any Councilmembers
to-date. Ms. Davis reviewed these circumstances in detail, opining that her
family had been “in crisis” for a number of years; that their intent in moving
into this home was to provide handicapped accessibility for family members; and
further reviewed their intent and the reality of their circumstances in
completing this project. Ms. Davis assured Councilmembers of their preference
to be good neighbors, and advised that she had sought assistance from various agencies
and neighbors to assist in completing this project. Ms. Davis noted that, due
to her full-time employment, her family did not qualify for assistance from the
agencies she’d contacted to-date; and that no assistance had been forthcoming
from their neighbors or church in completing the work. Ms. Davis further
assured Councilmembers that, given her husband’s former ownership of a
construction firm, they were more than qualified to complete the work, but that
they had been overwhelmed by the circumstances previously noted, and asked for
patience and understanding in completing this work, which she anticipated being
completed by the end of this summer.
Mayor Klausing offered the City
Council’s sympathy for the family’s difficulties; however, noted that the
property had become a long-term nuisance for the neighborhood for seven years,
and an immediate solution was necessary; and suggested that the abatement
process may be useful for their situation, given their physical and financial
circumstances.
Discussion ensued among
Councilmembers, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Munson related to whether it was realistic
for Ms. Davis and her family to complete the work this summer; those materials
on hand for completion of the siding and soffits and those yet to be acquired;
clarification of those organizations contacted to-date; staff contact with GMHC
to determine if any assistance was available; Ms. Davis’ work with Xcel in
burying a cable on the north end of the home; assessment payment options over a
certain time frame; and determination of a preferred date for completion of the
work this year.
Ms. Davis advised that she had
experienced inferior construction from others in the past in assisting them in
completing the work.
Mr. Munson noted that if the work
was not completed soon, the home’s exterior would continue to deteriorate, as
well as costs to abate the work increasing due to fall weather concerns if not
completed during the summer construction season.
Further discussion included the
amount of work remaining to be completed (i.e., siding and soffits); nature of
the work on scaffolding; equipment and materials available from the homeowner;
and possible compromises to accommodate all parties and bring resolution to
this issue.
Ms. Davis expressed her concern in
the City Council attempting to “box her in” with a specific date, when she was
unsure of her family’s life circumstances from one day to the next.
Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10802 entitled, “Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Code
Violations at 2433 Simpson Street (Attachment B);” directing staff to abate the
above-referenced exterior City Code, Building Maintenance and Preservation
Code, Minnesota Statute, and Minnesota State Building Code violations at 2433
Simpson Street, if the property owner does not substantially complete and
comply with the abatement order and voluntarily correct all listed violations
by August 31, 2010 (with abatement to include completing unfinished
siding and soffits, installing a permanent electrical service, and raising the
chimney to a code compliant level; as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010,
at an estimated total cost of approximately $21,500.00; 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.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
b.
Consider Right-of-Way Acquisition of 1885 and 1915 West County
Road C
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon sought City Council approval to authorize staff to make an
offer, as previously discussed during Closed Executive Session, for the
rights-of-way acquisition along Prior Avenue from 1885 – 1915 County Road C as
per that discussion.
Roe moved, Johnson seconded,
acquisition of portions of the property located at 1885 – 1915 County Road C
West for Phase II of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project.
Roll Call
Ayes:
Ihlan; Johnson; Roe; Pust; and Klausing.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve Development Activity Extension for Rainbow Foods
City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed
the request of Roundy’s for an extension of Condition 6.1 of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD), as detailed in the RCA dated April 12, 2010, after review by
staff and the legal counsel, with the City Council within their purview to
grant this additional time.
Discussion among staff and
Councilmembers included ramifications if this extension was not granted and the
process in seeking PUD amendment in the future if so indicated; expiration of
the current conditions on May 12, 2010; existing structures on site and their
uses; whether a farmers market was anticipated on site, with staff advising that
such a use would be counter to the products the store sold itself; and creation
of the clause under discussion through action of the City Council in their
original approval for Roundy’s; acknowledgment that they would not be able to
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for future construction of a restaurant
use on the parcel without obtaining a PUD Amendment to do so.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval
of a twenty-four (24) month extension to the commencement of any/all structure
development activities for Rainbow Foods, located at 1201 Larpenteur Avenue W.
Mayor Klausing noted that
extensive discussion and public comment had been held on this issue previously,
and opined that nothing was to be gained by forcing them to commence the entire
process again; and spoke in support of the extension.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
opposition to the motion, opining that there was the public interest to be
gained in allowing the City Council review of future uses; expressing her
interest in additional green space on site to break up the “sea of asphalt;”
however, she noted that the redeveloped parcel was a great asset to the
community, even without a plan for future redevelopment at this time.
Roll Call
Ayes: Roe
and Klausing.
Nays: Ihlan,
Johnson; Pust
Motion
failed.
Recess
Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 8:55
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:00 p.m.
13.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
a.
Commercial Use of Public Property
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon provided a brief overview of staff’s research and analysis
regarding the use of public property for commercial purposes, and sought City
Council discussion and further direction. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this
discussion had been prompted by the original request of Clearwire to locate a
telecommunications tower in Acorn Park, with that request ultimately denied,
and the tower now proposed for location on private property south of Acorn
Park. Mr. Trudgeon provided, in the agenda packet, several items to prompt discussion,
including a draft policy for telecommunication towers from staff (Attachment
E); and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation on general
conditions and specific to Acorn Park (Attachment F).
Mayor Klausing expressed
appreciation to staff for providing commercial uses in a broader context, given
their frequency of use; theoretical policy versus their use as a funding
source; and how to strike a balance between that revenue and traditional fees
and/or property taxes.
Councilmember Roe recognized two
aspects: that of cell phone towers themselves, and a broader discussion, both
of which had been addressed during the Parks Master Plan process. Councilmember
Roe cited several examples, such as how to include non-profit uses in parks,
where items may be for sale, and how and when those uses were appropriate or
not. Councilmember Roe questioned the criteria to consider such revenue
benefits and control over their siting; and suggested consideration of any
policies from surrounding or metropolitan communities (i.e., City of
Shoreview); and other types of commercial uses. Councilmember Roe further
suggested reviewing setbacks from residential properties, and considering the
proposed commercial use on the specific park, whether next to or in an active
use or natural area and their location accordingly.
Councilmember Pust concurred with
Councilmember Roe’s comments; and suggested that this issue go through the City
Council’s advisory commissions for their perspective, particularly the Parks and
Recreation Commission for their consideration of when a commercial use would be
appropriate in a park; while recognizing the infrastructure benefit to the
community and meeting those needs. Councilmember Pust opined that it was a
vastly different concept to use a park versus a rooftop at City Hall or other
public building.
Mayor Klausing opined that it was
not primarily a revenue consideration from his perspective, but compliance by
local government with federal law to permit siting of these towers; and further
opined that it made more sense to use public property to allow local government
greater control over those uses. Incidental to that, Mayor Klausing noted that
the visual burden would be placed on the community no matter the location,
therefore if the community has to shoulder that burden, they should benefit
financially from that aesthetic burden.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that
the towers did not have to be sited in parks; and expressed initial approval
with the conditions and considerations provided by the Parks and Recreation
Commission, and spoke in support of a clear policy that parks not be used for
locating towers, according to those conditions, questioning if a cell tower
would ever provide a benefit to a park, or provide a benefit to park users.
Mayor Klausing clarified that the
purpose of tonight’s discussion was for discussion only, and not for drawing
conclusions or drafting specific language, but providing direction on
development of such a policy, and determining if additional information was
needed.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
locating a cell tower next to a park was just as obnoxious as locating it in
the park (Acorn Park); and used the example of the electrical towers over
Central Park and their aesthetic impacts. Councilmember Johnson noted that
those issues caused him to reconsider his opinion on locating towers in parks;
and expressed interest in additional information to develop a policy in the
future.
Councilmember Roe advised that he
was not comfortable at this point making a determination on a policy that
stated that towers could not be located in parks; opining that some parks may
or may not be conducive to such use; and if the criteria were developed
adequately, it would address those areas of concern, while allowing for
locating towers in open and larger parks that may provide passive areas where
they would be appropriate.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that the visual impact was not the only consideration,
while it may be primary; however, consideration of taking up space where trees
and/or wildlife could be; environmental concerns, while recognizing federal
law; and noting that they were not recreational or part of the environment, and
were not conducive to park uses, and impacted migrating birds. Councilmember
Ihlan sought additional information on the specifics of federal law as it
related to environmental issues; and spoke in support of a clear policy that
the City not even consider applications for locating towers in parks, but
recognizing the need for more discussion.
Discussion ensued regarding the
merits of the draft policy developed by staff; potential areas of disagreement
with that draft; consideration of recommendations provided already by the Parks
and Recreation Commission as well as those individual opinions expressed
tonight by Councilmembers.
Councilmember Roe suggested that
staff return to the City Council, with recommendations of the Parks and
Recreation and Planning Commissions for the benefit of their discussion.
Mayor Klausing concurred with most
of Councilmember Roe’s recommendations; however, he suggested that the City
Council provide further input to staff, and after further Council consideration
of a revised draft policy, then it move toward the Advisory Commissions for
incorporation of their recommendations based on that draft language.
Councilmember Roe concurred with
Mayor Klausing’s recommendation.
Councilmember Pust requested
information on policies of other communities; and Mayor Klausing requested that
staff provide that information before further discussion at the City Council
level.
Councilmember Ihlan reviewed the Imagine
Roseville 2025 and Comprehensive Plan documents (Land Use Section – Policy
1.7) supporting her position; and the rights and objectives of the City as a
property owner, and impacts to be analyzed.
b.
Discuss the Public Works Environment and Transportation (PWET) Commission’s
Role in the Recycling Request for Proposal (RFP)
Mayor Klausing noted that the
purpose of this discussion was as a follow-up to Councilmember Roe’s request
for involvement by the PWET Commission in the pending Recycling Provider
Request for Proposals process.
City Manager Bill Malinen provided
staff’s perspective with respect to the RFP process and staff’s intent to
develop that RFP using best value approach methods, with the ultimate goal in
recycling to divert materials from landfills and get them into the
manufacturing process. Mr. Malinen advised that it was not intended under that
best value method to provide specifics, but to allow respondents to provide
their best value approach for ranking by the evaluation team. Mr. Malinen
suggested that commission members could be involved in those panels.
Councilmember Roe sought to
clarify the actual charge to the PWET Commission from the City Council in the
process, not necessarily in writing the RFP itself; and suggested several areas
for their involvement, including:
1) PWET having the opportunity
to offer their input into generation of the RFP, such as their thoughts about
evaluation criteria; and/or
2) What the City
Council is looking for, such as a technical review from their areas of
expertise; and/or
3) Their voluntary
participation in the review process as bidding goes forward.
Mayor Klausing questioned how
appropriate it was for advisory commissions to be involved in drafting RFP’s,
suggesting that staff’s expertise seemed more appropriate.
Councilmember Roe suggested that
involving commissioners in evaluating the RFP’s was appropriate, and clarified
that he was not suggesting that the commission be involved in writing the RFP
itself, but providing their perspective on the document drafted by staff,
allowing for an additional chance for review and comment.
Councilmember Pust opined that she
didn’t see a downside in seeking their involvement and their perspective, given
their interest in such issues.
Discussion ensued regarding
involvement of advisory commissions in their traditional roles for professional
expertise and citizen input.
Councilmember Johnson opined that
it was not inappropriate to have input from the PWET Commission in developing
criteria , but beyond that it was not necessary to have their involvement.
Mayor Klausing requested that
Councilmember Roe provide specific direction to the PWET Commission as to their
role:
1) Review draft RFP
and provide feedback to staff to take into account and improve RFP as it comes
forward;
2) Possible
participation in the evaluation process
Further discussion ensued
regarding who would make that determination on their involvement in the
evaluation process, whether that would be the City Council, staff or the PWET
Commissioners.
City Manager Malinen noted that if
all five (5) of the PWET Commissioners wished to be involved in the evaluation
process, it could become problematic; however, one or two (1-2) commissioners
could be accommodated to participate in the process, and asked that the City
Council leave that to his discretion to determine who was involved on those
panels, based on their expressed interest, but not at the directive of the City
Council or the PWET Commission itself.
Public Comment
John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N
Victoria Street
Mr. Kysylyczyn reviewed the
history and past practice regarding the recycling contract; his perspective on
the role of the citizen advisory commissions in providing input on policy
issues; and opined that, given the multiple options for recycling currently
available, there were multiple policy issues to be considered, on which it
would be appropriate for the PWET Commission to provide recommendations, in
addition to their involvement when bids were received and which option was best
for the City. Mr. Kysylyczyn recommended using the talents and opinions of the
PWET Commission regarding this process.
At the request of Councilmember
Johnson, City Manager Malinen reviewed the best value contracting approach for
this bid, and criteria envisioned and reflecting community values in the
process, weighing each component with those values.
14.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen distributed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember Pust requested
deferral to a later date than the April 26, 2010 agenda for discussion of the
City’s relationship with the North Suburban Community Foundation to allow the
Foundation to complete their revision of some of their corporate documents.
15.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
16.
Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 9:45 pm.